I still have some in my basemant that I flip through every now and again. Some of them are works of staying inside the lines art, and others are, quite literally, vomit covered scribbly-gooks.

Right. That's my point. Those who do not feel love and trust are implicitly linked will no doubt find it easier to choose one of the options you presented. I'm not saying that answer is wrong, simply that they've a different set of values. If you're going to present a deliberately contrived scenario that doesn't even use universally agreed upon definitions of certain concepts, I'm not sure why you'd expect everyone to play along to the letter.

As I said, the point of these questions is to force people to examine their own priorities and beliefs. That's precisely what people are doing when they say neither. They are thinking, "Loveless of trustless? I find them both equally undesirable," and then they voice that opinion. Why is that not just as valuable a contribution as one that does prefer one over the other?

Yeah, I'd just not get married.

Not a big fan of marriage in the first place, and with the extra incentive not to, there would be no doubt in my mind that I'd just stay a bachelor.

If however, I must get married, then I'd go for the chick that doesn't cheat on me, but doesn't really love me either. I think that she must be a really great person to resist the temptation of cheating despite not truly being in love with her husband, so yeah, probably a keeper (conversely, it could mean that she's so ugly, she can't even land a [censored]-buddy, but I'm introducing far too many variables into this...) Also, I noticed that you used the phrase "doesn't love you yet". Implying that she'll fall in love with me at some point, I don't see why I wouldn't want to marry this woman.

Edit: But if the woman who loves me is cheating on a hot lisbian, and let's me in on the action, I'm totally there.

yes everyone can change, but the uncertainty is damn hard to get rid of and it often forces the other to ignore and suppress their own feelings instead of actually moving on. it's destructive

The reason is, it can almost universally be accepted that most people would rather do neither if they could help it. I'm not asking if people love both of these scenarios or hate them. I'm sure someone out there doesn't care which, not everyone wants to be married, most people don't want to be cheated on, and most people desire love.

My purpose of asking the question is to find out, when it boils down to it, which would you rather have? Which is more iimportant to you?

Why not just ask that in one simple line then?

"What's more important, love or trust?"

There!

Also, just to be clear, the reasons behind the cheating are open to the interpretation. So are the reasons behind the loyalty.

Maybe he/she cheats on you to pay her/his drug dealer, or maybe because someone was going to kill you if he/she didn't. There are many ways to look at it. You can make your own backstory.

Maybe the other scenario mate doesn't cheat on you because of religion. Maybe it's because you're the only attractive person. Maybe they signed the prenup that says if they cheat you get to feed them to piranha.

Some people can find a reason to pick one over the other.

now you're making it a lot more complicated.

Exactly. To some people they are equally important. Learning that some people find them to be equally important is just as valuable as learning some people find love more important or that some find trust more important.

And this still does not address the argument that love requires trust.

I feel like a fair bit of people are mis-reading the bit about the one who loves you but commits infidelity; just because s/he cheated on you does not mean s/he doesn't love you. Love and lust are different in one only lasts for the duration of sixual endeavours, and they're not exclusive, nor is it impossible or even improbable to love more than one person (or lust for more than one person).

That being said, I would rather go for the Love/Infidelity relationship. Sure, I would be hurt about the infidelity aspect, but nobody is perfect.

Those were all underlying implications in the OP. I'm just explaining it for people that don't get it.


Like I said several times, if you can't pick a side, that's fine. I don't desire your participation. We're also operating under the assumption that it is possible to cheat on someone and still love them in this hypothetical situation. Even if it wasn't strictly hypothetical, you may or may not believe that. Just like everyone else. I happen to be addressing those who would like to select one of the two answers in the OP. To those that would not, you need not respond.

But what's the point then? You're apparently trying to start some sort of dialogue on whether love or trust is more important, but then you arbitrarily reject a valid, middle position. Presumably you'd like reasons for why someone would choose love over trust. Why are the reasons as to why one values each equally barred from discussion? Aren't those just as informative as opinions that do value one over the other?

Or more accurately, why pose a question on a public message board and then get upset when answers don't fit into two neat little categories? It's like making a Coke vs Pepsi thread and getting bent out of shape when someone says Dr. Pepper.

The 'valid middle position' is not desired.

It is simply a matter of reading the OP, opting to participate or not, and opting to follow the given criteria or not. If you really desire to post an answer that attempts to undermine the question, by all means go ahead, but it simply is not desired here and posting it would be fruitless to me, the op.

A little rule I go by when making threads like this around here, unless you're making a thread in which someone would ask something of the OP directly in order to move forward (i.e a thread asking which computer to get, and the first reply is "what's your budget?") just post the thread and come back hours later when you have a nice set of replies to read through rather than micro-managing every detail of the thread. After all, you're asking for the opinions of others, right? Let them say what they want then. Your objective is observation of human nature. So sit back and observe. You can't go "Oh no, I don't want to observe you doing that! Do something else!"

^ Well said. Sound advice; taken into consideration! (I hope this reply doesn't constitute a paradox.)

^

What I'm arguing is that this is a discussion forum, and most topics are not going to fit into tidy little packages. The discussion will evolve, switch focus, occasionally run wildly off topic. If all you want is an answer to whether Love/Trust is more important, then you ought to just poll some random sampling of people. When you make a discussion topic, however, you're asking for justifications and argument and consensus building and whatever else. That's going to include people who value the two equally, or even those that value neither. Their reasons for those positions can only add to the discussion.

Only people are going against what is asked. He is sking for an oppinion, only people are giving ones that the OP never asked for instead.

Simple question, A or B.

Only instead of answering or just ignoring the thread, people are saying X.
People should either answer the question they were asked, or not answer at all.

That's sort of inevitable on a public discussion forum.

I don't think he ever intended the thread to be a discussion of which opinions are welcome and which aren't in a given situation, but lo and behold that's what we're discussing

I'd go for the second option. It would reduce the chances that either of us would get an STD infection. In the first option, who knows what she's been infected with since the last time you saw her.

I know this is off-topic. But I think it says something about the CD that I saw your thread title and instantly thought "Oh God they've killed someone"

On-topic, the second one. Even if she doesn't love me we can at least be friends with tax benefits or something

If you're going to make it so binary anyway, you should have a poll.

I'd rather marry someone who didn't love me. To me, marriage is about the promise. You promise to stay faithful. You promise to care for eachother. You promise to co-operate with the raising of any children. Most of the key promises have nothing at all to do with romance. If my spouse didn't love me, well, that's undesirable, but it's no worse than spending my life single (if "no love" means "no romance") or going between somewhat shallow relationships (if "no love" means "not your soulmate"). If my spouse isn't faithful, then I cannot trust them, and that's absolutely terrible.

I still don't know why people won't just fight the [censored] and call it a day.

From what little evolutionary psych I picked up off the ol' interweb, I'd say that women would opt for A more often than men, and men would opt for B more often than women. Feel free to tear this apart.

Personally.. neither,
I would not enter into a marriage that had any doubts whatsoever about going with someone else.
In the first scenario if I found out my partner two-timed me after we married I would drop her/him like the scum they are and expect likewise.

However, the second scenario does apply in 'arranged' marriages in other societies where the bride and groom may have never met before the big day and it usually works out okay as they 'grow' on each other. So that point is acceptable but does not in anyway give the other partner any leeway at all for advltery.

Marriage is a sacred religious joining for life of two people with the explicit purpose of propagating. If it's just living together without commitment then expect partners to play the field.