Sustaining a Relationship: Personality or Luck?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

does a person's personality or luck play the greater part in determining whether they are good at entering into long term relationships?

― Grandpont Genie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:31 (eighteen years ago)

this seems like a 'how long is a piece of string' type of question.

― blueski, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:33 (eighteen years ago)

Personality of course. Luck is the same for everyone.

― Mark C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:35 (eighteen years ago)

It has been a while since I have thought about this, but the 'how did you meet yr lover' thread really brought it home to me. There seem to be quite a lot of ilxors who have been in a relationship with their S.O.'s for five years or more. This has never happened to me. The most I have managed is two years, almost to the day in fact and there were a lot of warning signs earlier on that *that* relationship wasn't going anywhere, which I ignored or didn't see (mixture of the two). I have never married or even cohabited with anyone. But i honestly don't know whether my personality or just fortune is the main contributory factor.

― Grandpont Genie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:35 (eighteen years ago)

personality, environment, *the other*. it's a combination of things. luck? not so much in my opinion.

― nathalie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:36 (eighteen years ago)

Luck is the same for everyone

not only do I not believe this but I am at present incapable of seeing how anyone could *ever* believe this, but I am open and willing to be put right on this.

― Grandpont Genie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:36 (eighteen years ago)

Who is/was Grandpoint Genie and why do they start so many threads? Actually just who is Grandpoint Genie, I'm glad of the threads!

― kv_nol, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:36 (eighteen years ago)

There are lots of different factors I think. Timing is an important one (i.e. both of you being in the same place, emotionally, and wanting the same thing out of the relationship etc etc blah blah)

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:38 (eighteen years ago)

if it is personality then it must be v subtle nuances of personality, insofar as it is obvious that all sorts of ppl do have long lasting relationships - from the very shy to the very outgoing for example. and I have been both of those things in my life.

― Grandpont Genie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:38 (eighteen years ago)

Who is/was Grandpoint Genie and why do they start so many threads?

is, certainly, the assumption that I had died in the few seconds between my last posting and yours was a somewhat large one, I feel.

maybe I should turn that question around and ask why other ppl start so few threads, but to be more direct - I am interested in lots of things, I like this board, I like to be noticed and I like to hear what other ppl think.

― Grandpont Genie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:40 (eighteen years ago)

Yes but who are you? MarkH? That would make the most sense anyway!

― kv_nol, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:41 (eighteen years ago)

Also plz 2 note:

Actually just who is Grandpoint Genie, I'm glad of the threads!

― kv_nol, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:41 (eighteen years ago)

I really do believe luck does play in part in meeting the *right* person, but from then on it's all about you and the other. How hard are you will to invest in the relationship and maintain it. So few people realize that there are always bumps on the road, it's up to you to drive carefully. haha God, what a crap way of saying this, no?

― nathalie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:43 (eighteen years ago)

I have known a couple have personalities which were complete polar opposites but they still managed to sustain a relationship, although I suppose having complementary personalities is probably a smoother path to take.

I don't think there's any magic formula for what makes any relationship last long-term; I think when two people meet who are really right for each other, they just sort-of 'click', and all the agonising over how to 'make it work' evaporates because there isn't really any 'work' involved. It just happens. That's not really very helpful, is it?

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:46 (eighteen years ago)

CJ OTM, but I know a few couples who really shouldn't be together at all and only hang around each other because of habit/co-dependency/anger-energy/don't want to lose the sex. I'm sure we all know couples who spend their entire time arguing or shagging.

― The Wayward Johnny B, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:56 (eighteen years ago)

money, every time.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:05 (eighteen years ago)

Everyone doesn't have the same "luck" - that's the whole point of luck, that it is something totally random.

I mean, we could break that down further, and say that what most people call luck is actually a combination of other factors, mostly access and opportunity. Which certainly aren't the same for everyone.

When I look at people who are in successful long term relationships, I'm struck by how much of it (mainly meeting the "right" person in the first place) does appear to be down to luck. Maybe that's discounting the amount of work that goes into these things - but from the other side, I'm someone who has put an immense amount of work into a relationship and still seen them go pear-shaped on an alarmingly regular basis. (Though I suppose that would point towards the personality side - that *I'm* just not cut out for long-term relationships.)

But whatever it is, I think it pretty much is unique to *each* individual relationship - and cannot be generalised upon. There is no one size fits all approach to relationships, and badness results if you try to apply that kind of standardisation upon relationships.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:10 (eighteen years ago)

johnny, sex and co-depedency are not bad reasons, really. better than no sex and simmering resentment, no? encountering people's parents after their kids have moved on often you're like, damn, basically it was just their kids keeping them there wasn't it? which is sad but maybe not as much as you'd think.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:10 (eighteen years ago)

"That one guy that quit" - are you Enrique? I kinda want to ask you why you are so bitter.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:12 (eighteen years ago)

i don't think i can teach you anything about bitterness kate.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:16 (eighteen years ago)

I'm serious, Enrique - some of the things you've said on this thead have me *way* beat for bitterness, and that's really saying something. Did I miss something? Looking through old ILX threads, you used to be such a dynamic and interesting poster. I'm not being mean, and I'm not trying to make zing-fodder, I just really wonder what happened in the interim - if you just got bored, or something else.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:18 (eighteen years ago)

i made two posts. 'money' was a joke; the other one wasn't bitter at all! i though johnny was being odd -- the concept of 'co-dependency' is a wanky pseudo-psychological way of saying what is frankly the beating heart of most human relationships. what's wrong with depending on one another? and what's wrong with sex? i was being the opposite of bitter -- and again when i said sticking together for the kids wasn't the worst thing in the world. sheesh.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:23 (eighteen years ago)

i mean given i've just had a seven-year relationship end, i think i'm doing ok, bitterness-wise!

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:23 (eighteen years ago)

that's right ladies: he's on the market.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:24 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sorry that your relationship ended, I didn't know that. It does kind of explain where you're coming from, though. These things colour one's posts.

Half the things I say, I don't even think I'm being bitter, just honest about mine own experiences, and then I get people jumping on me going "BITTER MUCH?!?!?"

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:26 (eighteen years ago)

it's all happening!

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:27 (eighteen years ago)

Don't all rush at once.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:28 (eighteen years ago)

settle down louis.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:29 (eighteen years ago)

i am bitter about nu-ilx sucking.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:30 (eighteen years ago)

I imagine it might be pretty bitter.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:32 (eighteen years ago)

Don't all rush at once.

I don't know, I'd say he's a pretty good catch. He has form, and is aware that relationships not consisting entirely of hearts and flowers and no-you-hang-up-first moments can still be considered successful. If he can psychically sense when cups of tea are required, I'd say he'd be a good bet.

So, that one guy who quit, do your people have any land at all? What are your teeth like?

― accentmonkey, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:33 (eighteen years ago)

it doesn't matter enrique, come back to cambridge and i'll show you a wild night on the town, that'll take your mind off things.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:35 (eighteen years ago)

we broke up over my teeth :(

haha louis.

no.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:36 (eighteen years ago)

I have lots and lots of money

― RJG, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:39 (eighteen years ago)

RJG should've designed the new £20

― blueski, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:42 (eighteen years ago)

It's both. I was lucky enough to meet someone who was both compatable with me and who also fell in love with me at the same time I fell in love with them - but also personality, because we ARE compatable. But what you're missing here is that long term relationships are also work; they aren't always easy and you aren't always going to get along. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who shouldn't get divorces or break up, but there's a choice between is this worth putting the work into maintaining the it and the return you get from the relationship.

(Uh, sorry to make relationships sound bizarrely like economics at the end there...)

― Sara R-C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:43 (eighteen years ago)

I have lots and lots of buildings that don't exist

― RJG, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:45 (eighteen years ago)

i don't think luck has been a significant factor in my personal (limited) experience of long-term relationships, other than the 'luck' of meeting them in the first place perhaps.

― blueski, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:45 (eighteen years ago)

**I think when two people meet who are really right for each other, they just sort-of 'click', and all the agonising over how to 'make it work' evaporates because there isn't really any 'work' involved. It just happens.**

I think CJ is right here - up to a point. Agonizing over how to 'make it work' means that it probably isn't going to work. But assuming that no work is ever needed can be dangerous - I have been guilty of that kind of complacency in the past. Sometimes you just sort of assume that it's still working without bothering to check and that's not good.

― Dr.C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:53 (eighteen years ago)

surely the luck can only be in finding a person with whom you can sustain a long-term relationship, it's not something you'd want to rely on in the actual maintenance of the relationship.

― c sharp major, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:54 (eighteen years ago)

Luck is the same for everyone

not only do I not believe this but I am at present incapable of seeing how anyone could *ever* believe this, but I am open and willing to be put right on this.

Obviously in whether you meet x person or y person or both or neither, is a given - it's not a variable, it's a starting point. What I'm saying is that luck absolutely can't be relied on. You can't EVER base any decisions on how "lucky" or otherwise you might be because at any point in time it is by definition equal for everybody.

So if you ever find yourself wondering about something you can do/change/affect vs luck, the former is the only possible course of action because the latter is 100% arbitrary and random. The person who has a piano dropped on his head is no more unlucky than the person who wins the lottery BEFORE these events happen,and since we're also talking about changing future events, luck has to be discounted.

The only way luck can realistically be taken into account is in the form of probability. If you have to cross a raging river to be with your beloved, and you reckon there's a 75% chance you'll drown, then you can make an informed decision about risk vs reward. If you go to a party and give yourself a 10% chance of pulling and a 1% chance of meeting your soulmate, again, you can decide whether it's worth it. But that's not "luck" in the way you're using; the "luck" you refer to is the utterly arbitrary nature of happenstance and it's completely beyond our control.

― Mark C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:04 (eighteen years ago)

you're missing here is that long term relationships are also work

what I said upthread. so i would also add that relationships work when the other listens which obv rarely happens on ilx. (i'm halfjoking)

― nathalie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:05 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry - "Obviously in TERMS OF whether you meet x person or y person or both or neither, LUCK is a given"

― Mark C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:06 (eighteen years ago)

otm -- where the luck comes in is "arbitrary bad things haven't happened (yet)". you can't rely on it for the future, that's the thing with luck.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:07 (eighteen years ago)

Spot the poker player :)

― onimo, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:07 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

― onimo, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:07 (eighteen years ago)

I'm starting to think that all my bitterness is due to my relationship with ILX.

― nathalie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:08 (eighteen years ago)

I think I phrased that badly - I don't mean that a long term relationship doesn't require any work, but rather that it shouldn't actually feel like work, as such. If it feels like 'work' too much of the time - if you are having to mind what you say, or how you say it, or make too many compromises or sacrifices to keep your partner happy, then perhaps it isn't the right relationship to be in. Obviously life isn't all sunshine and lollipops all the time, but if two people are mostly compatible and if they really really like each other (over and above fancying each other and being in love etc, I think truly liking each other is a pretty important thing), then it's second nature to treat them with the kindness and respect which is needed to weather the little bumps along the way. Being able to slop along together in easy-going harmony isn't quite the same as being complacent, but I see where you're coming from with that - it can be a mistake to assume that everything is okay without checking once in a while. But that's where communication comes in (also v important in relationships, unless you are both mind readers WHICH IS UNLIKELY).

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:10 (eighteen years ago)

the laws of probability and statistics applied to relationships...hmm. since 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce and both my siblings are divorced (after 10+yrs and kids) odds are my marriage will last? somehow the numbers don't reassure. to ans the q: luck in meeting somebody, personality in sustaining a relationship and once you're wed/formally committed a willingness to change or adjust yr personality is required.

― m coleman, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:11 (eighteen years ago)

for me it's personality. im stubborn and give up easily.

― homosexual II, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:19 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.tvenvy.com/blogimages/hurley_on_lost.jpg
you make your own luck, guyz

― g-kit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:22 (eighteen years ago)

x-post CJ said **(also v important in relationships, unless you are both mind readers WHICH IS UNLIKELY).**

True. Sadly I am not a mind reader, even though Mrs. Dr. C at times apparently IS! One mind reader is not enough, it needs to be 2-way.

**a willingness to change or adjust yr personality is required**

I don't believe that's possible. You are stuck with the personality you have, but you can adjust behaviour. I think there was a thread on that somewhere.

― Dr.C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:22 (eighteen years ago)

― nathalie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:34 (eighteen years ago)

i think what single people might normally construe as luck is actually a cocktail of all sorts of different factors, some of which might not seem like anything on their own: prevailing status of friend group, preferred social venues, shyness with new people, willingness to take risks, comfort with being single, body language in social situations, etc etc. luck is obviously a factor but its silly to think you can parcel long-term partners and long-term singles into essential groups of lucky and un.

― ^@^, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:41 (eighteen years ago)

luck is finding a five dollar bill on the street.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:42 (eighteen years ago)

^^and not getting run over when you pick it up

― m coleman, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:44 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe a little bit of personality adjustment is necessary (eg I am aware there are certain things I do which really irritate Mr CJ, so I do try and make an effort not to do them so much), but the nicest thing about being in a relationship which works is the freedom to just be yourselves, and for that to fit comfortably with each other.

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:44 (eighteen years ago)

Luck or no, I do think some people are simply better at being in relationships than others. Meaning, oh, I dunno -- that they're good with boundaries and maintain the Self well while still being meshed with another, or that their needs to have particular gaps filled are less urgent and so put less pressure on the partner, or that they just have great social/communal skills and are more pleasant to be around, or any number of things! Maybe these are some of the people who never seem to be single.

Conversely, the more specialized or difficult your emotional needs (or preferences, anyway), or the more uh uncommon the past experiences that have shaped you, the rarer your Very Good Match will be, it only stands to reason mathematically!

― Laurel, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:45 (eighteen years ago)

i think luck IS a factor insofar as it could maybe initially contribute to someone's deep-held belief that they're meant to be single, but that's about it.

― ^@^, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:46 (eighteen years ago)

That isn't called luck, that's called experience.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:53 (eighteen years ago)

― blueski, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:58 (eighteen years ago)

Personality of course. Luck is the same for everyone.

Mark C on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:35 (2 hours ago)

Most OTM comment in whole thread. Cuts the Gordian knot.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:58 (eighteen years ago)

'someone' doesn't ALWAYS mean 'you', kate.

― ^@^, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:58 (eighteen years ago)

I still stand by my comment, anonymous person.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 13:59 (eighteen years ago)

It's a little like asking "Poker: skill or luck?" Better players will win more money more of the time.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:00 (eighteen years ago)

Whoah, a little less of the happily hitched being cocky about success in relationships, please! There's no way that's NOT going to ruffle feathers, not to mention make you sound unpleasant.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:02 (eighteen years ago)

not sure who that's directed to, but for the record, i'm not in a relationship.

― ^@^, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:05 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, you, carot mark person - I don't think that any "deep held beliefs" are the result of anything but experience or observation. No one on earth leaps out of the womb believing something.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:07 (eighteen years ago)

Nah, nah, I just mean that it's easy in hindsight to think that mathematical statistics mean everyone gets an equal chance just because luck averages out ACROSS a population (is there a statistician in the house?) when you're one of the happy ones....but that an individual can surely have better or worse fortune w/r/t running across a good potential mate before a certain age.

Anyway, I'm sorry to nag, but I just don't think cockiness is called for regardless...because even though I'm arguing that personality surely is part of some people's success!, at the same time you could shift my argument above to say that those who find relationships natural or easy to come by/stay in are less demanding, less complicated, less individual on the whole...ie BORING. I don't think that's right, but it's technically arguable.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:14 (eighteen years ago)

I think Laurel is right although I would add there's surely lots of people out there who would do well in sustaining a relationship but have also spent a lot of time single for whatever reasons (low self-confidence or something else that makes it hard for them to meet/get to know people in the first place).

This definitely applies to me. I felt comfortable alone and believed that this would remain so because I was (and still am) extremely insecure.

― nathalie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:16 (eighteen years ago)

Oh, I agree, and I wouldn't make a value judgment about it one way or the other. People who have an easier time staying in relationships have an easier time staying in relationships. It might mean they're more agreeable, more passive, more boring, more emotionally stable, more masochistic, more comfortable with themselves, more confident, less confident, or any number of things. I'm just saying I don't think you can cite "luck" as a significant factor (unless you want to talk about the luck that brings you all the parenting and life experiences that form your personality in the first place).

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:18 (eighteen years ago)

Of course there's a hefty element of luck in there! Any relationship is likely to be put under immense strain by things that are pure bad luck - sudden death of a relative or loved one, long term illness, financial problems, your partner meeting someone that is hotter and more interesting and more successful than you, onset of impotence etc.

Granted, how couples deal with these setbacks is down to personality, so it's personality really, but some couples just aren't tested in the same way as others.

― Matt DC, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:20 (eighteen years ago)

matt otm -- absence of bad luck is surely a big factor. i'm sure personality can mitigate that but on the other hand maybe it won't, depending on the breaks.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:23 (eighteen years ago)

i'm still not sure who's being cocky on this thread! i'm single and not particularly happy about it; i just feel more constructive if i focus on things i can change rather than put my circumstances down to blind luck.

― ^@^, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:25 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, Matt DC has put his finger on something I was thinking about, but could not figure out how to articulate.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:25 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, I guess that's true in any single relationship. I was more thinking in terms of a person's patterns.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:26 (eighteen years ago)

It's precisely because he does that, that the ladies like him.

― Michael White, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:27 (eighteen years ago)

i would assume that once you're in a relationship it's personality. i think the luck aspect factors into finding someone you'd WANT to be in a relationship with. the stars have to line up just so, circumstances just right, etc. maybe that crazy eyed girl on the train was someone with whom i could have a long, fruitful, sustainable relationship (although that sounds like i'm describing a successful citrus farm or something) but i won't know because the situation wasn't right for me to go find out.

― chicago kevin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:34 (eighteen years ago)

your partner meeting someone that is hotter and more interesting and more successful than you,

my ex had a name for people like this, she called them "everyone".

― chicago kevin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:35 (eighteen years ago)

The central problem with this thread is that too many posters are treating their actual or potential partners in terms of a successful citrus farm.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:35 (eighteen years ago)

or was that "anyone"? i can't remember now.

― chicago kevin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:35 (eighteen years ago)

Orange you glad about that!

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:36 (eighteen years ago)

when life gives you lemons...

― RJG, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:37 (eighteen years ago)

Matt DC has put his finger on something I was thinking about

EW!

Too many people are taking this all too seriously.

― nathalie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:38 (eighteen years ago)

Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:38 (eighteen years ago)

buy gin

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:38 (eighteen years ago)

crosspost

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:38 (eighteen years ago)

I'm quite proud of my citrus farm.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:39 (eighteen years ago)

when life gives you lemons...

suck it and be bitter?

no thanks.

― chicago kevin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:39 (eighteen years ago)

You dirty minded fucks! I suppose that's all cause you lot have sex and I don't, wah wah etc.

"put your finger on" is a metaphor, you idiots. >:-(

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:40 (eighteen years ago)

But, Cambridge.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:41 (eighteen years ago)

I know, Kate, I was kidding. :-)

― nathalie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:41 (eighteen years ago)

Six wives of Saddam Hussein, right?

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:42 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think there are any citrus farms in Cambridge.

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:42 (eighteen years ago)

I meant in terms of tasting bitter (LJ to thread).

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:42 (eighteen years ago)

It's not spelled 'citrus', you fools, it's spelled 'clitoris'. Sheesh.

― Michael White, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:43 (eighteen years ago)

Clitoris farming?

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:43 (eighteen years ago)

Keep them well watered.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:44 (eighteen years ago)

mental note: never accept lemonade from michael white.

― chicago kevin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:44 (eighteen years ago)

"cloudy" lemonade, eucch

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

lol @ nathalie zing, she must have some sort of hex over you, kate :-D

i'm not bitter, i know that when i eventually get a relationship it'll be a very loving, firm one!

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

it'll be a very loving, firm one

MUST.... SHOW..... RESTRAINT....

― chicago kevin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:46 (eighteen years ago)

Sustaining urinary tract infections : personality or luck?

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:47 (eighteen years ago)

depends on how cloudy your lemonade was

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:47 (eighteen years ago)

Clitoris farming?

Man, that would have made for an interesting 4H field trip.

― Michael White, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:51 (eighteen years ago)

your partner meeting someone that is hotter and more interesting and more successful than you,

Well, it's part of the compact of a marriage (if not all long-term relationships) that you're kind of giving up on the idea of shopping around. It's not all just a game of trying to find the hottest, most successful, most interesting partner possible. You invest yourself very deeply in the relationship to the point that it doesn't make sense to see if the grass is greener elsewhere unless there are already serious problems in your own, uh, pasture.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:53 (eighteen years ago)

http://ohiogamingcollege.com/images/Craps-Players.jpg

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:53 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry, that was supposed to be this:

your partner meeting someone that is hotter and more interesting and more successful than you, not a broken image link.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:54 (eighteen years ago)

has tom posted another comic? should I turn my images on?

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:55 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.wingkong.net/shirts/reflexes/reflex1.jpg

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:55 (eighteen years ago)

"hottest" is the problematic word here.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:55 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think my partner wants to meet a broken image link.

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:55 (eighteen years ago)

not that clever today sorry! it's a craps game. and then a picture of a torso wearing a t-shirt that says "it's all in the reflexes"

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:55 (eighteen years ago)

"Dammit, if only she hadn't won the lottery, we'd still be together..."

― blueski, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:02 (eighteen years ago)

In the case of personality versus luck, I choose personality. Of the other person. Because when you have a personal crisis, they're the one who has to put up with it. And vice versa.

The real question is more like personality vs. goals and ambitions vs. attractiveness.

― mh, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:04 (eighteen years ago)

Love isn't the Barclays Premiership.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:05 (eighteen years ago)

I think it helps to have low expectations, too.

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:06 (eighteen years ago)

true love persists even after relegation to the coca cola league championship

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:06 (eighteen years ago)

Alan Curbishley to thread.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:07 (eighteen years ago)

True love is a styrofoam cup of weak tea and a lukewarm pasty at half time.

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:07 (eighteen years ago)

You been listening to Ivor Cutler recently?

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:08 (eighteen years ago)

Love isn't the Barclays Premiership.

So, it still has terraces, is what you're saying?

― Michael White, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:10 (eighteen years ago)

It doesn't depend on instant results.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:12 (eighteen years ago)

See, this is why we just aren't made for each other, Marcello.

― Michael White, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:12 (eighteen years ago)

It involves kicking balls.

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:13 (eighteen years ago)

There's always hope of scoring in injury time.

― onimo, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:13 (eighteen years ago)

True love needs no referee.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:13 (eighteen years ago)

seriously sustaining a relationship is a matter of genetics people
you all know this so quit navel-gazing and acting like free will exists in the universe
anthropic uncertainty is a purposeful failure on the part of your mind
ok back to jokes

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:15 (eighteen years ago)

It involves kicking balls.

What I said to Marcello.

― Michael White, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:16 (eighteen years ago)

"seriously" is not applicable to this thread (or shouldn't be)

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:16 (eighteen years ago)

you don't sustain anything with kids

― blueski, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:17 (eighteen years ago)

i tell you, honestly, i would love it if we sustained a relationship, love it

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:19 (eighteen years ago)

apart from your own tiredness and poverty

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:19 (eighteen years ago)

are you talking to steve?

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:20 (eighteen years ago)

xpost-arama

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:20 (eighteen years ago)

This no 'new message' thing is turning ILX into a kind of demented MadLibs.

― Michael White, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:21 (eighteen years ago)

I miss the xpost notifications :(

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:21 (eighteen years ago)

you don't sustain anything with kids

yes you do, no freedom.

― nathalie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:22 (eighteen years ago)

i would just like to say that many of you are very, very witty!

But also - why does "long term relationship" automatically mean husband/wife/girlfriend/partner to everyone?
I have lots of long term relationships, all of which require work. I feel lucky to have my friends, and I guess I was drawn to them in the first place because of their personalities.
I just wonder why we all seem to ignore the MANY relationships we all have, and focus on the "one and only". because success in a variety of relationships is probably going to help the "one and only", partner, true love type relationship.
I am not very articulate today. Sorry.

― aimurchie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:13 (eighteen years ago)

Because generally, you don't get to have sex with your friends.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:14 (eighteen years ago)

Aimurchie completely OTM.

― suzy, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:16 (eighteen years ago)

It's not a substitute.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:17 (eighteen years ago)

unlike ole gunnar solskjaer

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:17 (eighteen years ago)

anton ferdinand in amazing form at west ham right now mcclaren are you listening?

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:19 (eighteen years ago)

Wait, ae you saying that the baby-faced assassin is having sex with my friends?

― Michael White, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:19 (eighteen years ago)

No, Aimurchie IS right, but you can have lots and lots of friendships and they can go through cycles of working out better or worse depending on how people are doing...but you can maintain them all at the same time and get what you need from other people, if the friend in question isn't good at, or is no longer, supplying it. With regard to sposes/partners, though, there are a certain number of things that yr sexual relationship and yr responsibilities to possib offspring and yr household require you to get primarily, if not ONLY, from each other.

I'm not sure what that means, necessarily!

― Laurel, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:21 (eighteen years ago)

Stop viewing friends as petrol pumps.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:22 (eighteen years ago)

It means that once you are married, you can't have sex with your friends. Or with a baby-faced assassin. Or a footballer on the subs bench (or anywhere else).

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:23 (eighteen years ago)

Unless you marry a footballer.

― Forest Pines, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:23 (eighteen years ago)

You have found the one flaw in my argument, FP.

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:24 (eighteen years ago)

'why does "long term relationship" automatically mean husband/wife/girlfriend/partner to everyone?'

ok i spose it doesn't but that's what it means here. one reason it's different from other relationships is in general people like their partner/lover to be exclusive. not so with other friends. oh and the sexing.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:25 (eighteen years ago)

If you married Roy Keane, though, sex probably wouldn't be allowed.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:25 (eighteen years ago)

Our car takes diesel.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:30 (eighteen years ago)

Is that a euphemism for being gay?

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:31 (eighteen years ago)

if it is, it's one of the best i've heard!

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:32 (eighteen years ago)

I wouldn't know. My 319 bus doesn't go via Uxbridge.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:32 (eighteen years ago)

"I'm a hatchback"

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:33 (eighteen years ago)

Nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:33 (eighteen years ago)

also, i would possibly let my wife have sex with OGS. it would be something of a feather in the nonetheless cuckold-spiked cap.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:35 (eighteen years ago)

Unless you're eating NOBBY'S NUTS at the time.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:35 (eighteen years ago)

Nobby Stiles?

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:36 (eighteen years ago)

Nobby Holder.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

nolberto solano

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

Norbert Smith: A Life In Film

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

nobby the house-elf

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

So what have we learned about how to sustain a relationship? Could someone please summarise?

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

At the end of the day Brian, you've got to give it 100%, because it's only a game, and at the end of the day, football is the real winner. The season has been a challenge for us but I'm sure we will come through at the end of the day stronger and wiser.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:41 (eighteen years ago)

So what have we learned about how to sustain a relationship? Could someone please summarise?

Have a nice personality which is lucky enough to meet the right person. And something to do with fingers, I think.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

score more goals than the other side

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

What if one point is sufficient to see us through to Premiership football next season? Should we sit on our laurels and keep our defensive tactics robust, or should we try to break forward and risk losing everything for the sake of a momentary thrill at the end of the day?

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:45 (eighteen years ago)

okay, marcello, stop it now. it hurts. we'll be relegated with two games remaining, i know it.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:47 (eighteen years ago)

You want to sit on Laurel?

― C J, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:47 (eighteen years ago)

Blimey, I've missed some quality debate!

My favourite euphemisms for being gay were both used on the same evening by our drummer, referring to two different people :

"He's on the away team coach"

and

"He's surely opening the bowling from the Vauxhall Road end"

― Dr.C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:47 (eighteen years ago)

Football talk makes me sick up.

― accentmonkey, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:47 (eighteen years ago)

SIZZLING SUNDERLAND shooting from tawdry twenty-third at the start of the season to BRONZE MEDAL POSITION in COCA COLA LAND! But Keane needs to avoid complacency since simmering resentment arising from further First Division action next season against the challenging likes of Watford and Charlton is how Nazi Germany started.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:48 (eighteen years ago)

Bleuuchh! SICK TALK! Bleeucch!

― accentmonkey, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:49 (eighteen years ago)

Believe it or not, it is with this level of humour that I sustain a relationship. I guess I am lucky.

― accentmonkey, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:50 (eighteen years ago)

"His stock ball's the wrong'un"

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:50 (eighteen years ago)

Allowing bloody Stoke to get two past them last night is NOT the way to the big time! Remember - Mourinho thought he was invincible but now facing tradesman's exit Ramon has to pay for his divorce somehow KEANE TAKE CAREFUL NOTE

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:51 (eighteen years ago)

or even Roman

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:51 (eighteen years ago)

"opening the bowling from the Vauxhall Road end"

OMG.

― c sharp major, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:52 (eighteen years ago)

someone's a Surrey fan...

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

"He's on the away team coach"

I only just now realised you meant bus, as opposed to, you know, coach.

― accentmonkey, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:55 (eighteen years ago)

He doesn't stop at Charnock Richard

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:56 (eighteen years ago)

GO DO SOME WORK, CARLIN!

Me, I'm off to think about being serenaded by Tara.

― Dr.C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:58 (eighteen years ago)

Nearly home time guv!

It'll end in tears, you mark my words.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:59 (eighteen years ago)

Me, I'm off to think about being serenaded by Tara.

Euphemism for?

― accentmonkey, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:59 (eighteen years ago)

my own favourite euphemism is "getting off at Fratton"

― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:00 (eighteen years ago)

It would be.

― Dr.C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:03 (eighteen years ago)

A: tolerance

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:12 (eighteen years ago)

It is personality, but I go with luck.

― jel --, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:43 (eighteen years ago)

Berbatov and Keane last night proved that it's not about personality or luck but SKILLS and INTERACTION!

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 15 March 2007 08:57 (eighteen years ago)

...with Steed Malbranque as their bit on the side.

― unfished business, Thursday, 15 March 2007 09:40 (eighteen years ago)

And something to do with fingers, I think.

This I can confirm is useful in keeping relationships together.

― The Wayward Johnny B, Thursday, 15 March 2007 09:46 (eighteen years ago)

I don't get the citrus farm reference.

Other than that, some good stuff here!

― Grandpont Genie, Thursday, 15 March 2007 09:49 (eighteen years ago)

ATTENTION GARETH - SCHTICK NOW OFFICIALLY LAME, WE NEED A NEW ONE. CONVENE IN 20MINS.

― Matt DC, Thursday, 15 March 2007 09:52 (eighteen years ago)

which one is gareth?

― unfished business, Thursday, 15 March 2007 09:53 (eighteen years ago)

Then again, Tara and Colin doing "Sometimes When We Touch" without actually touching. Were fingers banned from this hard hitting FAMILY SHOW?

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 15 March 2007 09:53 (eighteen years ago)

I don't know who anyone is any more, and I kind of give up trying to keep track of who is a regular and who's a sock puppet and who is a random fluctuation in the space time continuum. I just find it difficult to carry on any kind of meaningful discourse with a squiggle, but hey, Prince's missus must manage somehow.

― Masonic Boom, Thursday, 15 March 2007 10:32 (eighteen years ago)

Where were Isaksson's fingers last night when he needed them then?

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 15 March 2007 10:38 (eighteen years ago)

Los Candbury's fingres

― C J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 10:39 (eighteen years ago)

Candbury's? sheesh.

― C J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 10:39 (eighteen years ago)

SAY NO TO BOURNEVILLE TESCOS!

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 15 March 2007 10:41 (eighteen years ago)

**Prince's missus**

Is there a Mrs. Prince? We must know.

― Dr.C, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:04 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sure there is! Didn't he marry the girl from The Most Beautiful Girl In The World video? I don't know, I am not a Prince expert, but I'm sure there is a Mrs. Squiggle.

― Masonic Boom, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:07 (eighteen years ago)

Manuela Testolini, but I think they're currently going through a divorce.

― C J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:08 (eighteen years ago)

http://images-srv.leonardo.it/progettiweb/francescamariabersani/blog/prince2.jpg

― C J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:09 (eighteen years ago)

Hang on - Prince is TALLER than her? I thought Prince was about 3'4". (This may be from R&M insisting that prince was "too wee".)

― The Wayward Johnny B, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:15 (eighteen years ago)

He's standing on someone's shoulders. Any woman called Manuela Testolini has to be at least 6 feet tall. She's not hott either.

― Dr.C, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:18 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe she's kneeling

― C J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:18 (eighteen years ago)

she actually is a sock puppet! There's prince's hand!

― Mark G, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:21 (eighteen years ago)

not hott? waht?

― onimo, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:23 (eighteen years ago)

If the divorce goes through she'll be the 'Former Mrs. Artist Formerly Known As Prince'

― Dr.C, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:24 (eighteen years ago)

NOT HOTT! Just not, alright!

― Dr.C, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:25 (eighteen years ago)

She is hott. That's not a great photo. Not the HOTTEST EVER or anything, but still HOTT.

I'm disappointed this thread seems to have outlived the sustaining a thread thread.

― onimo, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:35 (eighteen years ago)

Well, that just tells you something, doesn't it?

Unless JW blows a gasket on yr thread, threads about relationships last longer than meta-threads about threads about relationships!

― Masonic Boom, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:40 (eighteen years ago)

Unless JW blows a gasket on yr thread

So the answer to the other thread was "personality" :)

― onimo, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:44 (eighteen years ago)

Let's see another photo then, hey?

Prince shoulda married Sheena Easton when he had the chance. She would have fed him up on Scottish food like, erm.....haggis and fried mars bars and stuff. Then he wouldn't be 3 feet tall, would he?

― Dr.C, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:44 (eighteen years ago)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b7/Manuelanelson1pz.jpg/200px-Manuelanelson1pz.jpg

― onimo, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:47 (eighteen years ago)

http://is.blick.ch/img/gen/L/o/HBLoAyVS_Pxgen_r_180xA.jpg

Prince has great taste in bad trousers.

― onimo, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:47 (eighteen years ago)

Note leg length to hide huge heels in shoes.

― onimo, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:48 (eighteen years ago)

Those white trousers make him look like he's going to be one of the newsreaders singing "There ain't nothing like a dame" on the Morecambe and Wise Christmas Special.

― C J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:50 (eighteen years ago)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d61/KFloyd/manuela_bet.jpg

― onimo, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:50 (eighteen years ago)

How long was Mr. and Mrs. Squiggles' relationship sustained for?

― Masonic Boom, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:51 (eighteen years ago)

No, she is hott. The more I look at that pic of her in what white dress, the hotter she gets, like a magic eye drawing or something.

― The Wayward Johnny B, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:51 (eighteen years ago)

Testolini married Prince on New Year's Eve of 2001 in Hawaii and took Prince's family name, Nelson. The two filed for divorce May 24, 2006 and had no children together.

― onimo, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:53 (eighteen years ago)

Five years, yeah, that's better than I've ever managed. Maybe I should change my name to a squiggle.

― Masonic Boom, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:54 (eighteen years ago)

I assume they had a relationship before they married.

― onimo, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:55 (eighteen years ago)

I was in a pub quizz last week, we named our team "The team formerly known as prince" That's because none of us could remember the squiggle!

― kv_nol, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:56 (eighteen years ago)

The squiggle was pronounced 'Maurice' IIRC.

OK, she's warm.

― Dr.C, Thursday, 15 March 2007 12:10 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.atwmusic.com/22475.gif

I just remember that it looked like a funny ankh.

― Masonic Boom, Thursday, 15 March 2007 12:13 (eighteen years ago)

My Prince expert tells me he doesn't use it anymore, because he resolved his differences with Warner Brothers, so now he's just Prince again. Or the Artist Formerly Known as the Artist Formerly Known as Prince.

― accentmonkey, Thursday, 15 March 2007 12:26 (eighteen years ago)

nine years pass...

it's all happening!
― unfished business, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:27 (nine years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this was a good entrance imo

― loudmouth darraghmac ween (darraghmac), Friday, 9 December 2016 23:59 (nine years ago)

morbs otm about the original q btw

― loudmouth darraghmac ween (darraghmac), Saturday, 10 December 2016 00:00 (nine years ago)

how much tolerance tho

― F♯ A♯ (∞), Saturday, 10 December 2016 00:03 (nine years ago)

enough

― loudmouth darraghmac ween (darraghmac), Saturday, 10 December 2016 00:06 (nine years ago)

so precise

u_u

― F♯ A♯ (∞), Saturday, 10 December 2016 00:08 (nine years ago)

crucial not to weigh yr tolerance too precisely unless you want to end up starting despairing threads like this imo

― loudmouth darraghmac ween (darraghmac), Saturday, 10 December 2016 00:09 (nine years ago)

why in the name of fuck would you want to sustain a relationship? the beginning is the only good part... after that u can just dip

― sleepingbag, Saturday, 10 December 2016 01:05 (nine years ago)

when u dip I dip we dip

― El Tomboto, Saturday, 10 December 2016 01:07 (nine years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.