Isn't it interesting how so many of our preferences are based on our experience of what we know?  If I had been born in California rather than in Kentucky, or to vegetarian parents, or into a long line of boaters, my life would be entirely different.  In terms of DNA, I'd be the same, but what of my interests or tastes would remain?

I'm thinking about this as I continue to navigate the waters of my marriage, and continue identify ways in which Joe and I are the same, and ways in which we are different.  I tend to thrive in situations that are in flux.  I like new places (I'll go anywhere at least once if I have the chance) and new people and new circumstances and new experiences.  Joe, on the other hand, thrives on stability.  He likes to be here, and not there.  He likes to know where things are, and feels comforted by knowing that everything has its place.  He is grounded and I...well, I am not.  I do need routine, though.  I need the structure that comes with making lists of tasks to complete each day, and that comes with making lists for everything else, too.  And, sometimes, Joe musters enough spontaneity to make plans in 5 seconds flat.  But the plans he makes always end up with him coming home, doing the things he does, and moving on.  My structure, on the other hand, could be integrated into any experience.  If I were traveling around the world, then I'd have lists of things to pack, "must-see" opportunities in each country, important contact information, hotel confirmations (though, were I traveling the entire globe, I'm quite sure that I'd spend the bulk of my time in hostels).  During my time in Luxembourg (which would surely have a spot on my list of places to go during this hypothetical [for now] journey), I would include things like, "Eat pain au chocolat, take train to Differdange to see the Chateau, have some spaghetti eis, go to the bottom of the grund".  In St. John, U.S.V.I., I'd be more likely to have a list that read, "Bathing suit, sunblock, sunglasses, towels, snorkel gear, magazines and 'fluff' novels, water." Oh, the bliss.

So, what's the best compromise here?  Is it for me to bop around the globe while Joe stays home?  That seems unfair (plus, it proved to be incredibly difficult when I tried that plan when I headed to S. Africa and Malawi...granted, that was only 10 days after we were married AND there were lots of life circumstances that made that particular trip exceedingly difficult, AND we had virtually no contact with each other...).  Is it for us to take more trips, but to have them be more domestic?  Is it to take trips sometimes, but, when we do, to make them really dramatic affairs?  (By the way, this assumes completely that money is no object when, of course, money is an important consideration).  Perhaps, I can convince Joe that we should buy a grand yacht, and he could enjoy the stability of staying on the boat, while I could hop from island to island and country to country.  Call me in 50 years and see how that plan has worked for us.

In the end, just like everyone says, we will just have to find a balance that works for us.  I need to be better about helping Joe maintain his sanity by keeping an orderly home (I'm not the tidy one in our family, but the bills are always paid on time and dinner's [almost] always on the table), and, until we have the expendable income that allows for lots of whirlwind vacationing opportunities, I am happy that Joe at least listens to my crazy dreams and lets me linger in the travel section of the bookstore a little bit longer than any normal non-trip-planner might.

(Note: I realize that there's a glaring problem with this entry, in that I didn't even bother to entertain thoughts of how having children plays into this conversation.  That's mostly because my brain would explode in considering all of the ramifications, and I just didn't feel like doing that to myself today.) :0)