Monday, March 23, 2015

Survey Says

Here's a question for those of you who like questions.

What's better?

Someone who treats you wonderfully when there, but is hardly ever there (including when you need that person most)?

Or someone who represents unpleasant emotional baggage, but is always there, physically and somewhat (albeit imperfectly) emotionally?

Is it better to feel 100% loved occasionally, or mostly tolerated 100% of the time?

Or is it better to be alone and find the strength to love yourself for better or for worse?

I'm leaning toward an answer. But input would be welcome. Thanks.


  1. Physical presence is not always the best, but the quality of time together is. And wholly being there for you, even if not in person, trumps being somewhat emotionally there or sporadically. Quality over quantity, is what I always say. Also, pay attention to how you feel afterwards with each. If you're emotionally drained and sad, it's not worth it.

  2. Surveys like this always make me ask, Is there a third option? And fortunately you provided one. I would say that if those are your only two choices then it is better to be alone and find the strength to love yourself. Or find another option. I loved Choose Your Own Adventure stories as a kid, and the best lesson I learned from them is that in life it's not a choice between page 165 and page 45. We can write our own pages.

  3. When I was in the relationship that was, we were together maybe two weeks a year physically. The rest of the time was on the phone, Yahoo Messenger, WhatsApp videos, etc. The short time we spent together was intense and totally 100% - we couldn't have enough of each other mentally or physically (and I'm not speaking only of bed). It's better to be together 100% fora while than only partly there all the time.


You're thinking it, you may as well type it. The only comments you'll regret are the ones you don't leave. Also, replies to threads make puppies grow big and strong.