Every relationship requires some compromise, so I don't think it's intrinsically wrong to accommodate your partner.

See, I think there's a big difference between compromise and changing oneself for a partner. To be asked (outright OR tacitly) to change oneself isn't "compromise." Compromise is mutually arrived at.

I think the key difference is that you may compromise what or how you do things (he'll cook, so you'll clean, etc.), but you shouldn't compromise or change *who* you are.

but you shouldn't compromise or change *who* you are.

I really don't think that's the principle. Being in a relationship should change you. Ideally for the better. But you shouldn't feel the need to squelch yourself.

My rule of thumb when assessing a relationship was more like: Does being with this person bring out the best in me? Am I my best self in this relationship?

In my last relationship it was kind of funny because my personality never changed and one of the things said to me (at the end) was that I could be too argumentative and bossy. And I said back "I was that way when you fell in love with me! Why was it attractive then and not now?" I am proud of myself for staying the way I am, because I was truly an awesome girlfriend. The "argumentative" label came from me listening to what he was saying, and when I disagreed, actually saying so. The majority of the time, I did agree with him, but it was the minority that stuck in his craw. And the "bossy" thing? That would be because after years of dating a man who was perpetually horribly lost (he is the first to tell you he has no internal compass), instead of walking around in circles endlessly trying to find something with him leading, I'd just say "I'm stopping and looking at a map" and correct our route.

The only difference was that when we first started dating, meandering endlessly around Paris or Boston or whatever with him hopelessly lost didn't matter as much to me because I was in love and holding hands and he'd kiss me at every corner. Four years later I just wanted to get to the fucking restaurant.

I have no regrets. My personality is forceful and I get shit done. If you are ill-prepared to deal with that, you're not the man for me. So there! :)

"I was that way when you fell in love with me! Why was it attractive then and not now?"

Yeah, StW told me early on that he liked that I was impatient to see him again.

Four years later I just wanted to get to the fucking restaurant.

Ahahaha. Also, I think you may have just answered your own question.

I have no regrets. My personality is forceful and I get shit done. If you are ill-prepared to deal with that, you're not the man for me. So there! :)

I love you, javachik.

I am beginning to think that the same qualities both start and end relationships. Like "nurturing" becomes "smothering". (Not that I know because of my own puny efforts.)

My rule of thumb when assessing a relationship was more like: Does being with this person bring out the best in me? Am I my best self in this relationship?

Doesn't work with a person who isn't very self-aware and doesn't KNOW who their best self is. My psycho ex convinced me that the changes he was encouraging in me were making me a better person and bringing out parts of my personality that I hadn't explored. And the hell of it was, up to a point, that was true. I just didn't know that "Okay, I really don't like this" was the point at which we should have stopped trying to change me.

I love you java--because I totally grok the difference between "aww we are so in lurve let's wander I don't eat I live on love!" and "I want to find the restaurant". Hee!

eta: just for clarity, this was last evening, not drinking wine at this hour

I was about to look at the time and calculate east coast vs west thinking "wow that's a little early, no?"

I am beginning to think that the same qualities both start and end relationships. Like "nurturing" becomes "smothering". (Not that I know because of my own puny efforts.)

Yep!! Erika is right on.

(I love you too, smonster)

And "spontaneous" becomes "unreliable."