lately i've been mulling over the notion of settling when it comes to dating and relationships. not settling in the sense of "settling down" but the idea that when you're single and find yourself faced with a nice, attractive, fun person who is interested in you but with whom you don't really spark, is it "settling" to give the guy a chance and date him even without the crackling chemistry?
webster's defines the word "settle" as the following....
1 : to place so as to stay
2 a : to establish in residence b : to furnish with inhabitants :colonize
3 a : to cause to pack down b : to clarify by causing dregs or impurities to sink
4 : to make quiet or orderly
5 a : to fix or resolve conclusively b : to establish or secure permanently c : to conclude
6 : to arrange in a desired position
7 : to make or arrange for final disposition of
not necessarily the most helpful, that mr.webster. from the above definitions, i would assume that settling means a life of stability, permanence, repression, calm/boredom, contrived contentment, and finally death. and while some of these things such as stability, permanence, and even calm are quite positive traits to have in a relationship, there are so many things missing. from the definition above you certainly don't get any fun, excitement, change, variety, or surprises - the stuff new relationships are made of.
so what do we do? is it settling to date someone even if there's no spark? is finding a good, decent guy so difficult that we're trying to decide if we even need the spark? admittedly, the spark dies down after a while, but do we want to surrender ourselves to a relationship that doesn't even simmer? how important is the spark and is it better to just find a good guy and hang onto him, even if that means sacrificing the stomach-flipping, exhilarating, heart-stomping, electrifying attraction that we so rarely find, typically with the wrong person?
dating (or lack there of) blows.