Vox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3PyJF_nzOY

Seriously, though - I think the question is wrong. It is not about settling vs. waiting for an ideal. When you make the decision to love someone for life, you are not comparing her against an ideal. You are matching her against yourself. (Substitute the appropriate pronoun.)

First, I think there is a problem with the word "settling." It shouldn't be used. People make choices. You can choose and focus on the worst qualities of a person or the best. When you think about what's wrong the entire time, of course you're going to feel as if you're settling. If you focus on the best, then you're going to appreciate that person.

I don't believe the window closes for meeting someone. (Some days it might feel like it has.) There aren't any regrets because you don't know the next amazing person who's going to appear in your life. (I'm an optimist.)

Choose the person who sees the best in you and who makes you feel good about yourself when you're together.

And if something inside you says don't marry the Bravo yelling guy with bad breath, then don't. That's not settling. That's called knowing yourself and making a choice without any regrets.

I had generally thought of men as being the ones always "looking for something better" and worrying that they might be settling.

I never really considered women might be doing that, too. As I look around, though, I see my circle of friends is full of women who have never married. Some because they were busy in their careers, and some who I now realize were always hoping for that perfect guy they had dreamed up.

My own marriage could be considered one of 'settling', for both of us, because we both ignored our inner voices that were screaming that it was a bad idea. I don't regret it, though, and even through the bad times, he and I maintained a great friendship (even when we hated each other )

Perhaps that relationship is a proof that Gottlieb's theory is false; we had all the connections she claims are important (and still have some), yet the marriage was doomed.

Perhaps my experience just skewed on her age scale. Had we met and married 10 years later (when we were getting divorced) it may not have ended at all. Settling as an older woman, rather than younger as she suggests, may have worked.

Or perhaps, as I've said many times, we just need to focus on longevity. We live in a disposable society - anything that doesn't work quite right, just get a new one. If people run into a snag with their significant other, they often just end it and start again with someone new.

"Till death do us part", "for better or for worse" - just anachronistic phrases foolishly left in the ceremony.

From the NY Times:
One version of the familiar oath -- ''til death us departe'' -- was codified as long ago as 1549 in Edward VI's ''Book of Common Prayer.''

I wonder why that was included? How long was the phrase used before the book was written? Why did the Anglican church include it? Was there a theological reasons? Who would benefit from it? Who would not benefit from it? This vow means to control the behavior of people (people must have been leaving marriages before death). What was the church/people afraid of losing?

LDS marry for an eternity -- that's a serious commitment. (I'll pass on that.)

One reason I think we want a relationship that lasts a lifetime is because we're afraid to be alone. In the past, women had to rely on men support them, so we would want a lifetime commitment.

In today's world, women can take care of themselves financially. Women don't need a relationship to ensure their basic needs are met, but they can look for one that makes them happy/connected. Maybe the women who are being told to settle have created a really good life for themselves, and now want the right man to be part of it. They should get what they want. And men should get what they want too.