Comments on: Passion Vs. Comfort: Do You Have to Have Fireworks to Have a Successful Relationship?

By: Doctor M

Doctor M — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:59:06 +0000

Thank you! I just read this at the exact minute and moment in time that I needed it. An eye opener. Your words really reached!! OMG!!! A thousand thanks!!!!

By: P

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:21:45 +0000

I’m always taken aback when I read statements from people desiring both passion and comfort in their relationships, when in reality they are mutually exclusive items from a time perspective. All relationships devolve from passionate ones to comfortable ones, or they dissolve…there is no “both” to be had. This is plain and simple logic…and no amount of believing you are entitled to both or could somehow find both will allow you to find this mix together. This is an incredibly unpopular concept to most because for some reason we are taught we can have EVERYTHING, even if the basic concept cannot coexist together. Allow me to explain:
One of the key components of passion is excitement. Excitement has, as one of its core elements, an amount of fear associated with it. Fear of loss, fear of danger, fear of non-reciprocation, and so on. One of the other core elements of excitement is anticipation–a desire for something not yet discovered or had.
Now, let’s look at comfort (and security). By definition, comfort is a LACK of excitement…because in order to feel comfortable, one cannot feel fear. In addition, there is a lack of anticipation, which ties into the fact that to be comfortable, what you feel comfortable with does not contain an unknown quantity or quality to it and therefore there is nothing to anticipate.
Ask yourself this: Would BASE jumping be exciting if you absolutely knew there was no (or little) chance you could be hurt? Would it be exciting to watch racing if there wasn’t the chance that there might be a wreck and you knew from the beginning who was going to win? Of course not…these things would be made into everyday activities like walking across a room. Unexciting…”boring” even, depending on how you define that or if excitement is what you value most.
I’ve heard lots of people talk about maintaining passion within their relationships, but when really talked to what I’ve tended to discover is that those people make the choice of commitment with this person, do become comfortable with this person (and therefore, the excitement/passion isn’t necessarily GENERATED by this PERSON or the RELATIONSHIP itself anymore), but become passionate about a LIFE with this person and facing LIFE challenges with someone at their side. The passion (and therefore excitement) is derived from the unknowns and changes in LIFE, not from the partner themselves, with the commitment to facing those together holding the union together.
Think of it this way; plenty of people have experienced something very exciting and had a passionate encounter with their significant other afterwards, even though the significant other did not actually CAUSE the excitement. Its the same concept and I believe the mentality of focusing the excitement of LIFE into a relationship is what people are actually doing when they claim they are maintaining passion in their relationship. They maintain a commitment to the relationship and focus the positive aspects of any excitement in life back into the relationship.
MOST people as it seems don’t do this–they look to their relationship to CAUSE them to feel passionate. After they are off the internal drug-induced high of their initial relationship stages, this is a doomed cause and cannot succeed (unless you are one of the less than 1% of the population that seems to have a short circuit in that respect). Once they start to feel comfortable with their partner by KNOWING them and believing themselves secure, that person can never CAUSE excitement–and if they DO, then you are no longer comfortable with them. That desire for passion/excitement simply isn’t compatible with the concept of comfort. EVENTS can cause excitement WITHIN the relationship, but not the person themself (if you indeed feel comfortable with them).
All of this relates back to the whole concept that people look to their relationship to MAKE them FEEL a certain way. Its an impossible quest and one that will always lead to disappointment.

By: Mandy

Mandy — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:10:27 +0000

I stubled upon this thread looking for my own answers to a similar situation. I appreciate all of the comments, as I learn best from others. With such wonderful insight, I find myself thinking one thing one minute and opposite the next after an insightful post. I have decided to me, chemistry is about so much more than physical attraction. I am 33, a single mom (but the dad is in the picture for our daughter), and have never been married. I have to admit most of my relationships have been fairly passionate, some more than others. As far as chemistry goes though, I usually can figure out if it’s there, that “thing” you feel that you can’t explain, fairly soon after meeting someone. And normally, I move on if there is no chemistry. BUt after having been in many recent relationships with lots of chemsitry, some comfortableness, but mostly rocky and unstable, I decided to give the current guy I’m dating more of a chance than I normally would. That said, of course he is practically the perfect guy, everything a woman would want in a man, thoughtful, sincere, reliable, trustworthy, good looking, nice body, outgoing…you name it…Of course here’s the BUT…I just can not force myself to have that “feeling” about him, that indescribable feeling where you can’t wait to see him or talk to him or hear from him, etc. It’s been 5 months and since month one I have been on and off in contemplating whether or not to continue the relationship…Of course he is in it 100% and has already asked about living together, which I said I”m not ready for, has told me he loved me, to which I’ve replied, I know I love you as a person, I think you are an amazing person, but I’m not sure that “I’m in love with you”…I know that sounds cliche, but I don’t know how else to say it, and I want to be honest….He just keeps saying we will take things slow then, knowing I have some apprehensions (think he doesn’t wanna lose me). Some people sounds harsh in response to Lori’s email, and it’s clear from her posts, she’s a good person with a good heart, torn and trying to do right by the people she loves and that love her (I too have my daughter in mind, as she has grown to really like my boyfriend, and yes, I should have tried harder to not let her get close to him at all, easier said than done when trying to work on having a LTR.). IT is a very perplexing issue, and Evan first post really saddened me when he gave the example about the index card with Passion on one side and comfort on the other…I guess I remain hopeful that’s it not one or the other. And I think passion and chemistry are different, but for the purposes of this thread can be used interchangably…As I do when I talk to people about this “problem”…As lacking the passion or chemistry, however you want to word it. At any rate, I don’t think it’s fair to my partner, I think he deserves more than I give to him, I think someone will have that “I can’t wait to see you” attitude about him that I do not…The comfort of the love, respect and on and on is such a nice change, yet I still find myself crying at times, knowing I’m still not totally happy, even with a guy who has all the qualities I thought I wanted, and maybe still do. Do I feel selfish? Yes! Confused, wondering what’s wrong with me, and why can’t I appreciate all that is good in him? YES! And some weeks I do just appreciate him and I’m content…and other weeks I”m trying to figure out what to say to break things off with him, but scared at what a great guy I would give up. I don’t feel I would be “settling” to end up with him, as he treats me wonderful…I do however feel like I would be just being complacent, like the passive agressive some talked about. And I think I’ve decided complacent will probably not get me through on a relationship for very long. To each is their own I guess, thanks for all the insight and best of luck to Lori, I think women often are so worried about everyone else being happy, they often forget themselves…but having children I know sometimes you have to make complete selfless decisions..but whatever you decide, I think your kids will be ok…as long as you and your husband can but the kids first whether it in a marriage or divorce.

By: Regina

Regina — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:11:38 +0000

EXCELLENT post Evan! What you wrote makes me think of the 80/20 Rule: people enter into a relationship hoping to get 100% of what they are looking for. If they are lucky, they end up with 80%. Rather than being happy and content with what they have, they leave the 80% (comfort), in search of the 20% (passion) that they’re missing. When (if) they find it, they are still not happy because they realized that once the dust has settled, they were actually better off with the 80% that they gave up.

By: Selena

Selena — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:14:10 +0000

It’s been my experience relationships based almost solely on sexual attraction burn out fairly quickly – long before they get to the “partner” stage. Really that’s what the first 3-12 months of dating is FOR – to see if there is more to it beyond sexual attraction. Unless you are the type to marry someone you’ve only known a month or two, this really isn’t worth a debate.

By: Helen

Helen — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:34:50 +0000

Something struck me as strange and a bit off in Lori’s original letter. It made me think that the real issue had nothing to do with either passion or comfort, but discontent from something else.

Why do I say this? Because I’ve known my husband for as long as Lori has known hers. There were NEVER fireworks, but there were always respect, love, affection, laughs, good humor, good times, and a deep trust in each other. And I’m very happy and consider myself extremely fortunate. I don’t need or want fireworks; I’m busy enough as it is (or maybe I’m getting old and just can’t handle it).

So the fact that after 13 years, Lori doesn’t feel content with what she has, makes me think that something other than passion is missing from her relationship. Do they not respect each other? Is there not mutual trust? If she’s known him this long, she would have realized that respect and trust are much more important than fireworks. So the fact that she doesn’t mention these makes me wonder. Her descriptor “great guy” means close to nothing.

By: C.

C. — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:36:50 +0000

I don’t think anyone is saying we should be in ‘chemistry-less’ unions, just that we shouldn’t be so blinded by passion that we miss the red-flags. Attraction and sexual compatibility is important, and I have felt that with a lot of guys..but AFTER I am already hot for a guy I always ask myself, “would this guy get out of bed/leave work and come help me if I was stranded on the side of the road with car trouble?” and that determines if we have a future.

By: Goldie

Goldie — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:25:19 +0000

Thanks guys. In that case, I vote for the golden medium, aka Selena’s #40.

Since I’m new at dating, but not so new at working for a living, I’d rather comment on this part of EMK’s post:

“Chances are, you’re compromising at your job – with your pay, your hours, your co-workers, your location, your status, your very career itself.
The alternative to this compromise is called unemployment (or, maybe, self-employment). Either way, it’s a lonely road.”

Yes, we have to compromise. But, only to a point. After a certain point, we have to draw the line. I’ve been through two periods in my life where I had to work random jobs – in college, and after my oldest son was born and I lost my job, and couldn’t find another one in my area in our small town. One thing I learned from that experience, is to never, if I can help it at all, take a job that I hate. Or a job that bores me to tears. I can go for a paycut, smaller company, less benefits, more stress, night shifts, far location, and it will still work out well if the job itself is something I more or less like. But I cannot do something that I do not enjoy doing whatsoever. It is a recipe for disaster. I put in ten times as much energy to do this job, because I pretty much have to force myself to do it; and I end up with one-tenth of my usual success and recognition, because, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get really good at something I cannot stand doing. Or at something that bores me out of my skull while I’m doing it.

Now imagine that your job has feelings, and it knows that you don’t like it, that it bores you to death, that you’re only in it for the paycheck, and will probably give your two-week notice and walk out as soon as something better comes along. That’s what I imagine some of those “chemistry-less” unions to be. Not good for either side, IMO.

With that said, my own Mom married my Dad because she thought he was good marriage material, even though she did not have much of “the spark” at the time. Over their 40-some years together, he grew on her. She suddenly developed feelings. They’re still together and happy, and both look very much in love with each other So, marrying for the sense of comfort works, but some minimal affection still has to be there. She wasn’t head over heels in love with him, but she didn’t find him physically repulsive, either.

I think it needs to be, not “passion vs. comfort”, but a little of both combined.

By: Ruby

Ruby — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:58:51 +0000

Goldie, the best definition of “chemistry” that I’ve read was in Judith Sills’ book, A Fine Romance. Basically, chemistry is a combination of liking and lust, and hopefully, it’s mutual. She writes that chemistry can be a help or a hindrance, depending on how you define it. If you define it as a magical and uncontrollable rush of passion, or you’re only able to feel it for the wrong people, then it’s a hindrance. But if you define it as a sense of connection, liking, comfort, interest, and sexual attraction, and find a number of people attractive, then it’s essential.

By: C.

C. — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:44:29 +0000

Goldie I would say “trust” and “mutual respect” are separate from chemistry. I’ve had chemistry with guys because they were fun and attractive and sexy, but I couldn’t trust or rely on them when I was in a bind. On the flip side, I’ve had guy friends that are always helpful and there for me and there is mutual respect between us, yet no chemistry. Thats the rub.