Im a believer in Aréte, a lifelong struggle to adapt and become the best version of you that you can be - though I've hit a philosophical rock. We often talk about men and women changing us in relationships. I see comments riddled throughout this forum about, "never changing yourself for anyone!"
But what if some change in relationships is necessary, or prior to, as it builds character and molds one into a different person down the road. Maybe rather than sit back and take the, "I don't need to change my dressing style/self esteem/money in my wallet/etc. to impress her/him - I just need to be myself!" We allow change to happen to impress someone, and interm, inlock new sides to ourselves we never thought we had?
We all say, "I'm only human, I'm not perfect," then why not strive for the perfection were missing.
But it at the same time I think, well adapting certain traits can be demoralizing and exonerating intuitions that aren't necessarily au current, or healthy, is not a decent practice of the positive individual. Dating in relationships teaches you about your standards and who you're looking for.
I want to know how you clarify these two philosophies, what is a decent change, and what is not.
- I agree more with the adaptability clauseVote A
- I lean more towards the self acceptance clauseVote B
Most Helpful Guy
I don't it's so much "change" but "adjusting" instead.
No one should expect a partner to "change" in a relationship, but instead each partners attributes, whether pro or con, should "adjust" to the relationship itself.
So say I like football a lot and go to almost every match I can in the season... I should be able to realise that my partner would like to go somewhere she'd like instead... I should be able to change my timetable to accommodate it - regardless of clashes.
A relationship is a partnership, of course.0