I think what prompted me with this was that thread about Bob Geldof in the old forum. The bit where he mentions how people can marry someone way different from themselves, then get fed up with them after a few years.

I was recently reading that it is common, very common, for people to choose their 'opposite' for a partner. For instance a man who is a bit reserved might choose a woman who is very outgoing. They might be dissimilar, but what is happening is that each makes up for something lacking or underdeveloped in the other. The woman might depend on the man to make decisions that need a bit of thinking through, whereas the man depends on the woman to create a social life for them.

The trouble comes after a few years when they both realise that their personal values are all different, and this can lead to a breakdown in the relationship.

Is this as common as it is claimed do you think? I have to say Sandy and I are different. For instance she is much more likely than I am to want to fill up our calendar with engagements, whereas I like to keep it as free as [possible - if it is all boked up I feel trapped!

Anyone else here living with their opposite? Is it a good formula for success or is it a recipe for disaster if you're not careful?

I think choosing an "opposite" as a partner is a BIG mistake. Certainly, it creates "fireworks" and a feeling of great passion, but as you say, over time the differences begin to grate.

I married my opposite. It was instant romance, passion and desire...but after just three years I realised I could not spend my life with someone whose goals and ideals were so radically different from my own. In the beginning, I thought we'd both learn from each other and compromise - but instead my husband's attitude to everything just made me even more determined to do everything my own way. C'est la vie.

Simon and I are different, but by no means opposite. We complement each other. He is quite reserved and quiet whereas I am very gregarious and outgoing. He is laid back and I am a panicker and a worrier. BUT, we share the same ideals, we want the same things, and we enjoy doing the same things. We are different enough to learn from each other, but no so different that we lead parallel lives and never the twain shall meet.

We also share the same views on where and how to live, children, families and all the "big" stuff.

The only thing we DON'T agree is on is how much money it costs to support me!!

I think we;'re complimentary rather than opposite.


Whilst we both share the same life goals, we both have differing character traits/skills which mean we can help each other out. Frinstance, he's an entertainer, who makes friends very easily, but sometimes lacks judgement. I, on the other hand, find making friends much harder, but am a better judge of character.

He look after the money, I spend it.

Frinstance, he's an entertainer...
"Frinstance" - did he get teased a lot at school?

I'm with Floops and Ceri. Same goals in life, same belief system. Different strengths and weaknesses.

Yes I'd agree with Ceri, Floops and Blink too. Mr V and I differ in lots of ways in terms of personality but we tend to balance each other out. We do however share core beliefs/views about what's important, life goals and we laugh at the same things.

Ah - we don't laugh at the same things. We laugh at each other.

I think we;'re complimentary rather than opposite.



Not sure if there is much difference though, main point being that one person makes up for what is not present in the other one?

Anyway, so far nobody seems to think of it as a problem that they and their partner's characters are different.

Have to say though - I'm not entirely sure about this 'sharing life's goals'. What does that mean?

I would say "life goals" are the big stuff...like your ideals/morality, do you want children, where do you want to live and in what manner, when do you want to retire, how do you want to live (scruffy or spotless, quiet or loud, town or country), religious beliefs, and attitude towards each other's family/friends.

I think if you have those things in common you won't go far wrong, no matter whether one likes rock music and the other classical or whatever.

Equally, you share the same personality traits (e.g. gregarious, reserved, etc) and hobbies, but if the "big" stuff doesn't fit I would say you have no hope.

I agree that some of those big things are important. For instance the children issue. But as for the rest - surely it would be deadly dull if you agreed on it all and set it in stone. Surely it's the differences, and the willingness to change, that make things interesting?

I wouldnt say so, not unless you thrive on conflict.


Originally Posted by floopy
I think we;'re complimentary rather than opposite.


Not sure if there is much difference though, main point being that one person makes up for what is not present in the other one?
There's a very definite difference imo. Pink and mauve are complimentary, whereas red and blue are opposite.

Pink and mauve share the same fundamental components, but with differing quantities of each. Red and blue are strikingly different and will often clash.

I agree that some of those big things are important. For instance the children issue. But as for the rest - surely it would be deadly dull if you agreed on it all and set it in stone. Surely it's the differences, and the willingness to change, that make things interesting?


I don't think it's "dull", no. One of the fundamentals I think you have to share is your willingness (or otherwise) to learn and try new things. A couple that share a willingness to change will be quite happy to modify goals as they go along; a couple that are both stick in the muds won't be unhappy as neither of them WANTS to do anything else (and yes I think some people are happy doing the same thing their whole life long).

I think that "compromise" is a very overrated word. What it REALLY means is, neither party gets exactly what they want. Bit of a recipe for disaster I feel.

I can tolerate Simon's Depeche Mode obsession (just about), but if I were forced to live in a crowded city when all I really want is to see the trees, or live in a dirty untidy home when I am fastidiously clean, would just drive me mental (I know, I've tried it).

I often think Simon and I are essentially the same person underneath; it's just our facade that differs. Sure, you don't get non-stop fireworks like I did with my husband, but these days I truly appreciate the comfort of spending my life with someone I'm compatible with.

I've led a VERY chequered life with my wild highs and utterly crushing lows; now, peace is a very attractive option for me indeed. :)

Hmmm this has had me thinking all day. I think dizzy and I are opposite. Right now we disagree on our approach to our four year old boy and eleven year old girl. Great conflict arena.
Dizzy is way more cautious than me.
I apparently make her laugh a lot and I am a good cook. Dizzy who does not enjoy domesticity has been a super hero during one daughters ongoing hospital business (she has cushings), and my mobility difficulties.
We may nor vote the same but we pull together when we need to.
As for conflict over the children we generally find middle ground or lately watch little angels on BBC 3 and let the lovely Dr Tanya suggest a better way!
I think if I was with someone like me it would be hell, I would not like to live with someone like me.
As for our life goals they change and evolve as life has changed us we do well accepting the changes and now seem settled into we will see where this part of life takes us!

As for our life goals they change and evolve as life has changed us we do well accepting the changes and now seem settled into we will see where this part of life takes us!
Sheoque, you put that brilliantly, I feel me and hubby do exactly this.
Our first child was unplanned, but totally loved. We had planned to get married but this kind of brought it forward a bit. We then planned our next child. Each child and move back to England and all the other stuff that goes with family life we have worked on together.
Sometimes we don't see eye to eye and have different views on somethings, but we talk and work things through together, and because he is my best friend I feel I can talk about anything to him.
I do feel we are very different in some ways, he is much more outgoing than I am, he can get flared up quicker than I do, I am more passive then he is, he prefers fishing quietly on the beach but I love a good night out. But in other ways we are very similar, very sensitive, have the same sense of humour, agree on the future for our family.
I think in a partnership there has got to be some differences to get on. I really wouldn't want to be married to someone who is like me(nothing would ever get done and all the money would be spent)
But you have to have that certain connection as well.

I really wouldn't want to be married to someone who is like me(nothing would ever get done and all the money would be spent)


Many people seem to think this way - if my partner was like me, such and such would never get done. But doesn't that mean that that by choosing a partner who can do the things you can't do yourself, you don't have to bother to learn how? And isn't that a bad thing rather than a good thing? If one of life's goals is develop ourselves as much as we can, doesn't depending on a partner to do half of it for us prevent that happening?

Like the old married couple where he always depended on her to do the cooking, and she always depended on him to change the fuses, and to drive the car because she never learnt. One dies - and the other one is left semi helpless.

I think it's probably naive to assume that shared goals on pairing up are going to be present for all one's life, and largely it doesn't matter too much so long as each can accomodate the other.

I think too much is made over whether people are alike or opposites, or indeed the relative fripperies of location, belongings and career aspirations -they are going to be circumstance-dependent anyway; it is more the behaviour and ability to compromise if required which can make a marriage imo.

I have always thought we were absolute opposites of the spectrum, and in many ways we are. But like many mention above, we hold many of the same core beliefs and life goals.

Yet I wonder if what sf says is in someways true, the older we get the more different we become, and I wonder whether this is the extremes of our otherwise 'normality' exhibiting themselves through age, confidence, experience etc.

eg. I have always been really socialable, and Mr F hasn't. Yet, 20 years down the line I have become ridiculously socialable, do not have a ounce of nerve in any social situation. Whereas, Mr F is becoming more hermit like and lacks any 'little' confidence he may have once had!!

So the traits that were 'complimentary' 20 years ago have now become antagonistic to one another. But like Lucy points out - compromise and understanding are crucial to marriage, indeed any relationship, to ensure longevity.

Many people seem to think this way - if my partner was like me, such and such would never get done. But doesn't that mean that that by choosing a partner who can do the things you can't do yourself, you don't have to bother to learn how? And isn't that a bad thing rather than a good thing? If one of life's goals is develop ourselves as much as we can, doesn't depending on a partner to do half of it for us prevent that happening?
All I can go on is me and my partner, and one thing that comes to mind is money. I used to spend money like there was no tomorrow, hubby is a saver. But since we have been together I now don't spend as near as much money because I've learnt from my husband. I feel that in our differences we have both learnt from each other.

That's pretty good, because I think that quite often it's easier not to bother.

Mind you, I still think that by and large there is a whole other side to most of us that we probably don't know we have, because it's enough to have it lived out by the partner.

In fact, I think some relationships are almost entirely based on having a partner that performs the side of life that you don't do yourself. I'm not sure if this is a good thing, in that it acts as a bond that keeps people together, or a bad thing in that it leaves people undeveloped.

Examples that I can think of are:

Husband leaves all the social arrangements to wife (Mr & Mrs SF and others I know)

Husband doesn't cook because wife can do it

Wife doesnt think through important issues because that's hubby's job

Having a woman in his life means man doesn't have to develop his 'female' side (music, art, dancing, emotions etc)

etc

But if you have a partner the SAME as you, it's likely you won't develop either as both of you will just stay in your "comfort zone" and stagnate together...isn't it?

Yes, I suppose so. If your partner has got qualities that you haven't I suppose one advantage is can make you aware that those qualities do at least exist.

On the down side though, when people are different types, there's a good chance that what is of value to one is abhorrent to the other. Then, when the time comes that you realise that your partner is a real person, and not just an extension of yourself, that's when you might run into trouble unless you can manage the differences.

Possibly another aspect to this is that people overestimate their power to change a partner -i.e. compel them to change to order, rather than the comfier gradual moulding/accomodating which can take years.

Compulsive control-freakers take this to extremes -enforcing major life-changes on a reluctant partner in order to 'prove' the love which in reality they are forcing -a sure-fire recipe for disaster.

I can live quite happily with those with different value systems to myself (which I suppose is perhaps as well), providing a few extreme lines are not crossed and my own views are respected. I would conversely find it very hard if I were compelled to agree or had my own dismissed. Ultimately different value systems, decisions, goals, if voiced should not equate to a declaration of war -more a leveller on which to mentally re-calibrate from time to time!

Possibly another aspect to this is that people overestimate their power to change a partner -i.e. compel them to change to order, rather than the comfier gradual moulding/accomodating which can take years.

I think if you go in hoping or wanting someone else to change then all is not well. Same with parents and children you can't change them only yourself.

I suppose the other thing is that people and relationships are not static things, hopefully they change, grow and develop with time and circumstance. Mr V and I met pretty young and have been together now 19 years so I think in many ways we have grown up together and have pretty much developed our relationship and collective responses / individual opinions in the face of what life has thrown at us along the way. I like Lucy's point about differences being a chance to re-evaluate ones own stance a lot. Perhaps that simple willingness to contemplate a different way of doing/thinking about things is one of the elements that helps make up a harmonious relationship between different characters?

Well put voice and Lucy.
I have also come to the conclusion that to seperate and start again for other than extreme reasons would be like taking on some new annoyances and utilising skills learnt in previous relationship to cope with them. Dizzy and I have come to the comfortable conclusion breaking in a new partner would be so hard so we will continue to bluster along contentedly and on occaisions not quite so!
(Have i mentioned how hard oops I mean FUN it is to have a four year old gracing our lives again......)

I can live quite happily with those with different value systems to myself (which I suppose is perhaps as well)
Can I start by saying - I LOVE LUCY!! Lucy this made me smile so much.:)

What I find interesting in long term relationships, whether they be marriage or other is that, people do change. And the ability to maintain relationships relies on compromise, trust and understanding.

sf mentioned before a few points that are pretty stereotypical about 'relationships' ie the 'wife' tends to be responsible for all social/birthday/childcare arrangements or the husband 'takes on board' all the 'heavy'/financial responsibilities.

Can I ask - if you have been in one of the above - and I don't mean, necessarily, my examples but similar 'stereotypical' roles, have you ever ceased to do it?? [eg. if it is your role to handle the childcare or finances.]

And if so what were the consequences or if you hadn't what you think the consequences would be?

I only ask this - because I would like to think that if we were without the other - then we were capable to do it ourselves. And I sometimes wonder whether I would - but then again when I find my self having to deal with daily 'stuff' that he would I do manage, albeit haphazardly.

[eg Mr F and I split up many years ago for 18 months - during that time he sent everyone, his whole family and firends, birthday cards, yet he is incapable when he is with me!!!]:confused:

I suppose me and hubby fall into those stereo typical roles. He goes out to work, I stay home with the kids. Do all the school runs, housework. He does all the decorating, and manly things.
I guess we ended up in these roles because I was the one to initially stay at home with the kids and he was the one to go and earn the money. We had to have some income coming in from somewhere.
But our plans for the future are to change it all around. I'm going to do my return to nursing course and then get a job, and with it being shifts, he is going to stay at home and do all the things I was doing. So our roles are going to be totally different and that is fine with both of us.
As to being able to do the things that he does if he wasn't here, then I'm sure I'd manage. I will have an attempt at anything that needs doing. I would do decorating but Mr A. is such a perfectionist that I would never get it right. So I guess in that way, yes I leave it up to him to get on with it. But if I was on my own I would have a go.
But then again, our stereotypical roles do cross over. I manage all the money, he has no idea when direct debits go out and who to. When we re-fitted our kitchen, I put all the cupboards together when he was at work (quite a mean feat if I say so myself, all of them coming flat pack from MFI) Before the kids, he often made food for me to take to work whilst I was sleeping during the day.

So I guess we have both changed with each other, and will continue to do so.

I don't know that this question stands up to much analysis really, as there are arguments both for and against marrying partners who are "opposites" in type to you.

Most people can cite a certain amount of difference between them and their partner and for every person who claims to have a successful marriage with someone similar to themselves, there will be another who claims that their marriage to someone totally different from themselves is equally successful. And by the same token, for every couple who states that their marriage ended because their partner and themselves were "different" there will be another marriage that has ended because the couple were "too similar". Ultimately, it comes down to whether both people in the marriage are prepared to make it work or not.

Any couple, whether similar or different, can have a successful marriage provided they love each other and are realistic about what a marriage entails. And all the personality analysis in the world won't change that fact.

Any couple, whether similar or different, can have a successful marriage provided they love each other and are realistic about what a marriage entails. And all the personality analysis in the world won't change that fact.

I'm not sure that any couple can have a successful marriage - if so why do we have such a high divorce rate?

Also, I think that looking at the personalities involved can be a useful way of trying to find out what's going wrong.

I don't know that this question stands up to much analysis really

I think that differences between the partners is given as one of the most common reasons for break down, I don't think many couples give being too much alike as a reason.

I'm not sure that any couple can have a successful marriage - if so why do we have such a high divorce rate?

Well, what I actually said was that any couple can have a successful marriage provided they love each other and are realistic about what a marriage entails. That's different from saying any couple can have a successful marriage per se, which seems to be how you have interpreted my comment.

To answer your question though, I think the divorce rate is much higher now many different reasons, but I don't think differences in personality genuinely account for many of them. Partly divorce rates are higher now because it is easier and more acceptable to be divorced than it was 40 years ago - particularly for women, who initiate a high proportion of divorces these days. But I also think a lot of divorces happen not because the people involved are different, but because one or both of them have unrealistic expectations of marriage. They don't take into account the fact that the person they married is likely to be a quite different person 10, 20 or 30 years down the line (and lets face it, we all change both physically and mentally over time). It can also be too easy to get "bored" and lust after the rose tinted memories of their single youth, which they forget they were keen to leave behind when they got married in the first place.

I think that differences between the partners is given as one of the most common reasons for break down, I don't think many couples give being too much alike as a reason.

I agree that differences between partners is given as one of the most common reasons for break down, but I'd still argue that the fact that they see these differences as being insurmountable indicates a certain niavety about the realities of married life in many cases. I'd disagree though that people never cite being too much alike as a reason for separating. I've heard that reason more than once "Oh basically, we were just too alike to be compatible" - which is a non sequitur if ever I heard one!

Basically, I don't think many people divorce purely because they have different personalites. Many people have very happy marriages with people who are very different to themselves and there is no getting away from that, so it can't in itself be a reason for the high divorce rate. Personally, I think people divorce because they get disillusioned with the whole marriage deal and because its easy to do.

Also, I think that looking at the personalities involved can be a useful way of trying to find out what's going wrong.

I don't think analysing the personalities themselves would help much either way. I do think that a analysis of each persons expectation of marriage would help though.

Oh, I've resurrected this thread because I'm playing Dol's game and this was the 4th thread on the online users list.

However, as I was the last person to respond to this thread, and I agree with everything I said its a bit difficult to make a response. :)

So, all I can say is......I really miss the days when these kind of threads were started and managed to attract the kind of responses that exist here. :sad:

Let's try and keep this one going then? :)

I agree with the core values point, but I think common points of reference can play a part. Mr F and I, from the outside, are polar opposites. But those who know us all say how similar we are. A lot of this is down to us having similar upbringings and backgrounds - we kind of know where each other is coming from and that allows us to trust each other.

It is very subjective though. There's a whole range of factors that determines similarity, and also what is personally important - as long as there are enough of the right ones for both parties, the relationship will last.

I guess that it is too general a question and therefore, as has been said, has enough room for both sides of the argument to be given enough room for justification. Most folks have very small sample sizes when making judgments like this.

My wife and I had polar upbringings but her father had a similar one to myself. We do therefore have many of the same values and likes.

On the surface Urk and I had similar upbringings - we grew up in the same neighbourhood 19 houses from each other, there's only six months between our ages, we had mutual childhood friends, went to the same youth club etc, but his folks were uber religious non-drinkers, big into the community etc, and mine were, eh, not,... and this ressurects itself in some peculiar ways every now and again. He went mental and bucked against everything in his late teens, early twenties - school, employment, responsibility etc and so did I:w00t: .. then we both got a bit of sense, met each other again and now we're a mixture of hard workers / messers. But we know where we both came from and that really helps with tolerating and enjoying each other.

Until I met the late and very wonderful Mr I (Andy), I had always gone for "opposites", I remember a conversation I had with my friend the Trout Fairy 6 months before I met Andy, she asked if I would ever get married and have babies :laugh: AS IF was my answer..... all I wanted was a male version of me to mooch along with and until I could buy a baby with a full money back guarantee then that wasnt going to happen....but for the time being I was perfectly happy being single......12 months later I move 200 miles away to be with him! Dont get me wrong, he wasnt perfect and neither am I (well almost!!) and you do have to work at your relationship, but I think the most important thing is that you are with someone who treats you with the same respect and consideration that you treat them with.....

A few months ago I bumped into an old friend, male, recently back in Leamington and has been divorced 2 years - I used to fancy him years ago in my early 20's..... I went out with him a few times, and it was ok for a few weeks, but I dont think I was ready for it....and.....he drove me insane - he is SO totally different to me, Im an anal control freak and he is a really laid back artist who lives in a different time zone....so we are back to being mates (who sometimes sleep together :naughty:

I suppose the big issue for me personally now is that Im not ready for Andy not to still be a big part of my life, even though he isnt here anymore.....its weird....but then so am i sometimes.....:blush:

I think as we get older, we tend to go for people who are similar, whereas when we are younger we go for opposites......

Well, eight years on and instead of being opposites as we once were, Cockers and I have become more alike, in that we're both a bit saggy around the edges and can't be arsed to argue about anything any more.

We've also levelled the playing field of our experiences and tastes. He's now more aware of the finer things in life - I've introduced him to Shakespeare and Bach, and he's...well, he's got me seriously considering caravans in Yarmouth.

It'll be commercial television next...

Well, eight years on and instead of being opposites as we once were, Cockers and I have become more alike,

I think that's similar to Mr Figaro and I, although we were never really "opposites" to start with - just different.

But as the years have passed, we've definitely blended more.