Which Kind of Life Would You Prefer?

[anvi]

I've been thinking about this for a long time, for reasons I'm not going to reveal.  But I am interested in what you all think, so please vote and discuss.

If you had to choose one of only the following two options, which would you pick and why?  You're free to imagine and fill in your own details and limits as you like.  But, given those, which one would you pick?

Would you choose to be with a lifelong partner whom you deeply loved, but whose personality made daily life, within more or less tolerable limits, difficult in various ways?

Or, would you choose to be with a lifelong partner for whom you did not have especially deep feelings, but whom you liked and could get along with without much difficulty, and who made daily life relatively easy?

[anvi]

I voted for the latter before reading it - I thought it meant being single and rich.

That's a good option too.  It's just not available to me.  At least not the rich part.

[anvi]

Tolerant and loving is definitely a great human combination, DemPGH.

[anvi]

All helpful responses, and a good number of votes for both sides. 

I think Lief might have it right with the "grass is always greener" suspicion.  I also appreciate what Andrew says above about love for someone who doesn't treat one well being misplaced, precisely given the fact that real love, freely given by both partners, ought to naturally be mutual.  That's probably right, of course.  If only feelings would be that rational and pragmatic, perhaps human beings would have a much easier time with their lives.  As Nathan says and I definitely understand, the pull of feelings can often overpower one's sense of mere self-preservation, and as others above have intimated, there are lots of examples of instances in which that can be a noble thing; another aspect of real love is that it's a reaching out toward the other and not merely about protecting the self. 

Still, if feelings can't be rational and pragmatic, choices still can be, and the question in the OP was precisely about a choice. 

I am comforted, at least, that those who would prefer either option have very good reasons for doing so and so it's not necessarily an easy call. 

[anvi]

No middle ground option here, anvi? 

Ideally, there would be one, wouldn't there? 

[anvi]

Clarko95, sorry to hear about the extremely difficult relationship circumstances you were in.  It's quite difficult for all loved ones to try and help someone who is in such dire straits. 

TiK, I certainly appreciate where you're coming from regarding the way the question in the poll and OP was framed re. selfishness, the ideal reciprocity that healthy relationships should have.  But I'm not sure I understand your answer.  First, you wrote the there is no true love out there, and that option 2 in its own way represents "settling," but then you say go for compatibility.  Why is finding someone whom one could cherish and was compatible, though not necessarily "truly" loved in the popular sense, not akin to option 2?  I guess the latter was sort of what I had in mind for option 2, even if I may not have phrased it in a clear way.

Anyway, I think Andrew in the end is probably right above when he points out that, in the context of what are intended to be lifelong romantic partnerships, feelings strongly invested in someone who does not of their own will want to make you happy too are misplaced feelings.