Which is better?, All or nothing? Options

[XRosesXAreXBlack...]

All right, I've been thinking about it for a while and I wanted to get your oppinions.Which do you think is better in a relationship with a boyfriend/girlfriendd: 1)Having almost nothing in common or 2)Having pretty much everything in common.

1)If you don't have a lot in common, you might lose interest in the person, due to lack of having something to talk about, right?But...A lot of times people say "opposites attract".From what I've seen, a lot of times in relationships where the two people don't have a lot in common, the often get the feeling that the other person "completes" them.It's one of those "you're everything I'm not" types of things.

2)If you do have a lot in common with the person, you'll almost always have something to talk about that interests both of you, correct?But, I mean, you could get bored.Like...Talking to someone who's almost exactly like you would get old eventually, wouldn't it?

So, what you you all think?

[JustAnotherTeena...]

Ok, well from experience I'd say 'all'

I've had 3 boyfriends, the first wasn't anything big. The second guy I had almost nothing in common with. Opposites attract, but after that we ended up clashing & love just wasn't enough to hold us together anymore. Never really had much to talk about, since we didn't like the same sorts of things & had totally opposite personalities so we'd often end up breathing at each other over the phone or whatever. With him it was just break up, get back together, break up, get back together...that happened a few times until I finally broke it off for good. My third [and current, though we went out once before] boyfriend, we have a tonnn in common. It's so much fun because we can talk forever about anything or nothing without getting bored with each other, we like the same sorts of things [always a good thing], and we have the same basic morals & such[definite plus].