Gloria25 Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) Ok, some of the threads today got me thinkin...I mean, I've tried to ask this in the past, but think I know how to phrase it better. I've posted several times how I've had a string of casual RLs/FWBs over the years cuz I don't want the whole "white picket fence" thing and/or kids. I also have my own stuff.... So, the problem is, IMO, men need to be "needed". If you have no purpose for them (i.e. to provide/protect), they biologically are gonna be inclined to move on. Also, if a RL doesn't progress (i.e. kids and/or marriage)...again, no glue there to keep a guy around. My next problem is that I'm not like most women. I don't need to talk to you every day. I don't say ILY. I don't need to live with you...quite frankly, I don't need you to sleep over. I get quiet at times. I'm very stoic. BUT, when I'm seeing someone - I treat them well, in and out of the bedroom. I'm not juggling multiple guys. I think of them on the regular and I'm literally "with them when I'm with them". So, while I may not be "communicative" like some chicks - you have a person who's "got your back". Some people have posted about this here, but I'm sorta asking how to get around this or is there a possibility that there's a guy like that out there for me? Or, am I doomed to FWBs/casual RLs? Can you handle a woman who isn't ILYing you, calling/texting you all the time, and when you're around her, she is hugging and caressing you - but she's not saying much? P.S. I just am not wired like that. I don't get why women have to talk so much. There was a time my gf would call me like twice in a day and I'd be like "I just talked to you this morning, what else has happened that we need to talk?". I also had a gf who was dating a guy in the same company as her, so they worked in the same building, but she'd freak if he didn't have lunch with her on occasion. Why? when you get off of work you'll see him...plus, you spend all day texting him on/off Edited November 17, 2014 by Gloria25 1
Frank2thepoint Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Can you handle a woman who isn't ILYing you, calling/texting you all the time, and when you're around her, she is hugging and caressing you - but she's not saying much? I personally want a woman that engages me on a daily basis. I don't expect her to be on top me all the time, but I do want a woman to talk and communicate with me, just as I would to her and hope she listens to me. In addition some affection is necessary. But this is how I am and I let a woman know from the start what I want and how I operate. Some women like this, some don't. All I can say, there are men that fall into your category of desire, you just have to be upfront about it, even maybe advertise it to attract a like minded man.
Darren2013 Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Ok, some of the threads today got me thinkin...I mean, I've tried to ask this in the past, but think I know how to phrase it better. I've posted several times how I've had a string of casual RLs/FWBs over the years cuz I don't want the whole "white picket fence" thing and/or kids. I also have my own stuff.... So, the problem is, IMO, men need to be "needed". If you have no purpose for them (i.e. to provide/protect), they biologically are gonna be inclined to move on. Also, if a RL doesn't progress (i.e. kids and/or marriage)...again, no glue there to keep a guy around. My next problem is that I'm not like most women. I don't need to talk to you every day. I don't say ILY. I don't need to live with you...quite frankly, I don't need you to sleep over. I get quiet at times. I'm very stoic. BUT, when I'm seeing someone - I treat them well, in and out of the bedroom. I'm not juggling multiple guys. I think of them on the regular and I'm literally "with them when I'm with them". So, while I may not be "communicative" like some chicks - you have a person who's "got your back". Some people have posted about this here, but I'm sorta asking how to get around this or is there a possibility that there's a guy like that out there for me? Or, am I doomed to FWBs/casual RLs? Can you handle a woman who isn't ILYing you, calling/texting you all the time, and when you're around her, she is hugging and caressing you - but she's not saying much? P.S. I just am not wired like that. I don't get why women have to talk so much. There was a time my gf would call me like twice in a day and I'd be like "I just talked to you this morning, what else has happened that we need to talk?". I also had a gf who was dating a guy in the same company as her, so they worked in the same building, but she'd freak if he didn't have lunch with her on occasion. Why? when you get off of work you'll see him...plus, you spend all day texting him on/off No I don't need a girlfriend to call me everyday and quite frankly I prefer it that way. I don't want to hear from her more than twice a week. To me the purpose of the phone is to ask for the date and get off the phone in 5 minutes tops. The telephone is a dangerous weapon in dating and it creates alot of drama. I think dating was much simpler before the invention of telephone. Besides I think it is important to have that element of missing someone and absence makes the heart grow founder and you appreciate them more. I can't miss someone if I hear from them everyday let alone work the same job with them all day long and then see them at night. 2
Darren2013 Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Most of the communication I prefer face to face because I want to see the body language and facial expressions. That's obviously impossible over telephone and text communication. Too much text or email can also lead to misunderstandings and things get misconstrued as you can't detect the tone behind a person's written words. We see that happen all the time on here with posts. Some posters think I am angry when I am not. 3
Author Gloria25 Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 No I don't need a girlfriend to call me everyday and quite frankly I prefer it that way. I don't want to hear from her more than twice a week. To me the purpose of the phone is to ask for the date and get off the phone in 5 minutes tops. The telephone is a dangerous weapon in dating and it creates alot of drama. I think dating was much simpler before the invention of telephone. Besides I think it is important to have that element of missing someone and absence makes the heart grow founder and you appreciate them more. I can't miss someone if I hear from them everyday let alone work the same job with them all day long and then see them at night. Yeah, I wonder what women did in the old times before the telephone was invented....worst, the ones who their husbands were traveling and/or in the military. You'd have to literally wait and see "if" you get a letter from him...
Copelandsanity Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Gloria, I'm curious. You said that you don't casual relationships, but you also don't seem to want to get married and have kids. What is the vision that you have for your ideal relationship? 1
ASG Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 No I don't need a girlfriend to call me everyday and quite frankly I prefer it that way. I don't want to hear from her more than twice a week. To me the purpose of the phone is to ask for the date and get off the phone in 5 minutes tops. The telephone is a dangerous weapon in dating and it creates alot of drama. I think dating was much simpler before the invention of telephone. Besides I think it is important to have that element of missing someone and absence makes the heart grow founder and you appreciate them more. I can't miss someone if I hear from them everyday let alone work the same job with them all day long and then see them at night. Yes... mostly because marriages were arranged, so it didn't even matter that much if you liked the person you were about to marry or not... 2
Tayken Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Ok, some of the threads today got me thinkin...I mean, I've tried to ask this in the past, but think I know how to phrase it better. I've posted several times how I've had a string of casual RLs/FWBs over the years cuz I don't want the whole "white picket fence" thing and/or kids. I also have my own stuff.... So, the problem is, IMO, men need to be "needed". If you have no purpose for them (i.e. to provide/protect), they biologically are gonna be inclined to move on. Also, if a RL doesn't progress (i.e. kids and/or marriage)...again, no glue there to keep a guy around. My next problem is that I'm not like most women. I don't need to talk to you every day. I don't say ILY. I don't need to live with you...quite frankly, I don't need you to sleep over. I get quiet at times. I'm very stoic. BUT, when I'm seeing someone - I treat them well, in and out of the bedroom. I'm not juggling multiple guys. I think of them on the regular and I'm literally "with them when I'm with them". So, while I may not be "communicative" like some chicks - you have a person who's "got your back". Some people have posted about this here, but I'm sorta asking how to get around this or is there a possibility that there's a guy like that out there for me? Or, am I doomed to FWBs/casual RLs? Can you handle a woman who isn't ILYing you, calling/texting you all the time, and when you're around her, she is hugging and caressing you - but she's not saying much? P.S. I just am not wired like that. I don't get why women have to talk so much. There was a time my gf would call me like twice in a day and I'd be like "I just talked to you this morning, what else has happened that we need to talk?". I also had a gf who was dating a guy in the same company as her, so they worked in the same building, but she'd freak if he didn't have lunch with her on occasion. Why? when you get off of work you'll see him...plus, you spend all day texting him on/off Bold 1: You can exclude me from that group of guys/men. Bold 2: Can I ever. This will be the ideal/perfect woman for me i.e. my def of a unicorn. Bold 3: That type of woman and guys are the ones that can't seem to do anything by themselves e.g. go to the movies/restraint/travel i.e. the clingy types. I think my stance on workplace romance is pretty much clear. 1
Divasu Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 As a female, I relate to some things described. Years ago I had one strictly sex only relationship with a man I had known for a very long time, but never dated. That suited me fine (him too). But when it's someone I am dating and see potential with, I fall hard. My mind becomes open to possibilities. But the relationship needs to progress for me to keep going. Even then, I do not need to talk to him every day nor see him everyday nor would I want him to feel he had to talk/see me every day. I prefer effort made on both parts to create quality time. I prefer someone equally (or pretty close) independent-wise. I am fiercely loyal and expect the same in a partner. I am protective and nurturing, deeply emotional and complex at times so that can cause problems. Affection and words of affirmation come with it, though, I find myself more action expressive vs. verbal expressive (I think ). So, perhaps that is what one should strive for. Understanding/knowing yourself first and foremost to the best of your ability. I'm not sure you can adequately give yourself and commit yourself to another person properly without knowing your true self first. 1
Author Gloria25 Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 But when it's someone I am dating and see potential with, I fall hard. My mind becomes open to possibilities. But the relationship needs to progress for me to keep going. Even then, I do not need to talk to him every day nor see him everyday nor would I want him to feel he had to talk/see me every day. I prefer effort made on both parts to create quality time. I prefer someone equally (or pretty close) independent-wise. I am fiercely loyal and expect the same in a partner. I am protective and nurturing, deeply emotional and complex at times so that can cause problems. Affection and words of affirmation come with it, though, I find myself more action expressive vs. verbal expressive (I think ). Wow, you described me better than I posted here ^^ - except for the "progression" part. I don't want kids and I don't need to get married, cuz marriage is designed mostly in part to provide and protect for the female and/or kids you plan to have. I have my own things and don't plan to have kids - so, no need for the marriage part. 2
Divasu Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Wow, you described me better than I posted here ^^ - except for the "progression" part. I don't want kids and I don't need to get married, cuz marriage is designed mostly in part to provide and protect for the female and/or kids you plan to have. I have my own things and don't plan to have kids - so, no need for the marriage part. Cool. Oh, I did not mean marriage/kids. I meant a deeper level of commitment intimacy wise.
Author Gloria25 Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 Cool. Oh, I did not mean marriage/kids. I meant a deeper level of commitment intimacy wise. Well, that's my conundrum. Cuz, if it doesn't turn into marriage, but it's not a FB/FWB, then would it be some sort of perpetual bf/gf? 1
Lernaean_Hydra Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 My next problem is that I'm not like most women. I don't need to talk to you every day. I don't say ILY. I don't need to live with you...quite frankly, I don't need you to sleep over. I get quiet at times. I'm very stoic. BUT, when I'm seeing someone - I treat them well, in and out of the bedroom. I'm not juggling multiple guys. I think of them on the regular and I'm literally "with them when I'm with them". So, while I may not be "communicative" like some chicks - you have a person who's "got your back". Damn Gloria, your whole post could've been written by me but this part right here is spot on it's scary. I'll be paying close attention to this thread.
Divasu Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Well, that's my conundrum. Cuz, if it doesn't turn into marriage, but it's not a FB/FWB, then would it be some sort of perpetual bf/gf? Well, I don't know exactly. The times I've thought about marriage/kids, were more-so fantasy based in the moment. You don't necessarily have to be married and/or have children. Of course you'll have to make sure whom you choose to date is on the same page as you in that regard.
Copelandsanity Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Well, that's my conundrum. Cuz, if it doesn't turn into marriage, but it's not a FB/FWB, then would it be some sort of perpetual bf/gf? It's important to have a vision if you're going to be with someone long-term. For many, it's getting dating, getting engaged, getting married, going on a honeymoon, buying a house and having kids. If it's not that, then it has to be something else. If you don't progress, you stagnate, and that will lead to death. Sometimes it's going to be a vision created while you're with someone, but perhaps there's something you already have in mind. As an example, traveling the world...putting down all the different places you want to explore and why...and then you hopefully find someone who may not have the same list, but is like-minded and is on the same page with you on that blueprint. Or perhaps you're an animal lover, you both have a vision of raising a puppy from very young. Etc., etc. 2
Thegreatestthing Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Yea I'm one of those types too,when I lived with one of my bfs I requested my own room,I found seeing each other everyday very tiresome.i have a lot of interests and passions that go beyond romantic love,and I've always been like that. That said maybe I wasn't all that in love with that guy,with my bf now he can say I'm ignoring him etc,but when I explain to him I'm reading something,I'm really into something he leaves me alone completely,he's very good like that.
Tayken Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Yea I'm one of those types too,when I lived with one of my bfs I requested my own room,I found seeing each other everyday very tiresome.i have a lot of interests and passions that go beyond romantic love,and I've always been like that. That said maybe I wasn't all that in love with that guy,with my bf now he can say I'm ignoring him etc,but when I explain to him I'm reading something,I'm really into something he leaves me alone completely,he's very good like that. Makes sense to me...some of us have parents that slept in different rooms, and going back to Victorian times or prior, couples had different rooms. I went through an 8 month separation with my ex, where I slept in the smallest (office) room of a 4 bedroom house (my own house) because her daughter had a room, and our son had his room. I have my own passions beside work, and that includes traveling, architecture, museums, galleries, gardening, volunteering, extreme running so obviously am going to have to do some of these on my own.
salparadise Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 ...is there a possibility that there's a guy like that out there for me? Or, am I doomed to FWBs/casual RLs? Sure, there's a lid for every pot as they say. But what you describe seems pretty darn close to the definition of FWB/casual R. So what about intimacy and love? Does that sound scary, or do you just have no interest in anything beyond than a rather loose arrangement that includes sex? I was flabbergasted to hear you say that you prefer that a guy doesn't even sleep over! You do realize that for most emotionally healthy people, love-sex-intimacy-commitment are intertwined in such a way that they're inseparable? And it's not just for practical lifestyle reasons; it's emotionally healthy. I have known women (and men) who try to keep a guy in a sort of no-man's-land... they don't want you to drift away, but they don't want you to get too close either. I won't go into the intricacies, but theses are usually people with stunted emotional development who weren't completely loved and accepted as young children. They want some sort of attachment, but are afraid of intimacy. I'm not saying this is you, but I do wonder why a close, loving, intimate relationship isn't something you aspire to? That's what most people want, and it's not about neediness–– it's about being emotionally fulfilled. 4
GemmaUK Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I'm one who also doesn't see the need for all day every day contact. I loved the old days when I was in my late teens and twenties where a call was made to arrange a date. I'm not averse to living with someone again but so far those I have dated since I left my LTR were very much into moving in very quickly. In my mind that's a big commitment just as marriage would be. The men I have dated were all into very regular texts and calls and quite honestly I felt smothered and exhausted by it. Dating them became no fun at all and felt more like an obligation. I think I am pretty much done with the idea of anything long distance too, reason being is that there is no 'date night' as it's a whole weekend of 24/7 so there really isn't much opportunity to get to know someone gradually. 1
Emilia Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I think there is a difference between wanting autonomy (ie not being with the person 24/7, wanting some space, not being very touchy-feely) and being afraid of intimacy. I think a lot of people can relate to wanting independence but that doesn't mean we can't build an emotional closeness. 3
thefooloftheyear Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Just stop using "cuz" and you will be just fine..... TFY 2
Rejected Rosebud Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Of course there are men who will like you for who you are, men aren't slaves to their biology. Why do you keep talking about how you aren't like most women though, I don't think that most women are any way, we are all different. You might be doing yourself wrong to keep thinking you don't have a relationship because you are an independent person, lots of us do. 3
anika99 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I get where you are coming from as I am also a low contact person. I despise talking on the phone and there isn't anyone who I feel like I need to see for hours and hours on end every single day. I need lots of space and time away from people. Being single never bothers me because I just see it as an opportunity to indulge myself on having my own space and timetable. All that being said, I think it's reasonable for a guy to expect at least some verbal confirmation of your feelings. I'm sure he loves all of the physical affection but if you are not also communicating your feelings in words then he is left guessing what your feelings, thoughts and intentions are. There needs to be a balance to everything in life. I imagine completely withholding words of love and validation from a man would feel just as bad for him as the constant barrage of words. Maybe worse, because the latter is just annoying but the former would actually be hurtful. In your first post you say "I don't say I love you" What does that mean? Like you literally never say those words? Even if you love someone you wouldn't tell them? Why is that? Nobody wants to hear somebody saying I love you a hundred times a day because then it starts to sound cheap, but to hear it said from time to time with sincerity does wonders for a person's soul. Why would you withhold that? I'm very independent myself but I don't equate being verbally closed off with my thoughts and emotions to being independent. One has nothing to do with the other. Its not like all woman who have no problem validating their partners with words and attention are needy clingy woman who lack independence. Being independent isn't about being aloof and refusing to verbally communicate your feelings. 3
salparadise Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I think there is a difference between wanting autonomy (ie not being with the person 24/7, wanting some space, not being very touchy-feely) and being afraid of intimacy. I think a lot of people can relate to wanting independence but that doesn't mean we can't build an emotional closeness. I think that these may exist independently... but when you package them all together what do you have? Someone to stop by occasionally and service her, occasional human contact as long as it's brief and doesn't involve communicating, expressing (or having) feelings, or allowing their worlds to become intertwined. I'd say there's a lot more going on here than preserving autonomy. Seems like fear of engulfment, avoiding risk by not letting anyone get close enough to develop feelings or attachment. If a woman told me that's the kind of thing she's looking for I'd just pass. Well, depending on the hot factor, I might accommodate her desire for servicing a few times. But even for a guy who likes sex as much as I do, if there is no emotional connection or intimacy it just falls short of what I want and know is possible. I think Gloria should try therapy. I'm afraid she's missing out on the sweetest part of living just to avoid potential suffering. Joy and suffering are opposite sides of the same coin, part of living. Emptiness is not an acceptable substitute for either. don't need to talk every daydon't say ILYdon't need to live with youdon't need you to sleep overquiet at times, stoicnot communicative
Art_Critic Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I think dating was much simpler before the invention of telephone. in 1876 dating was more like.. you my woman.. make my dinner.. hahahaha The the OP... My wife is a little like you..I text with her either none or a few times a day and only speak once to twice a day on the phone, almost always about either dinner or our Son... Dating was like that too.. it was no biggie once I learned she was wired that way but did take me having to step back and not react to her silence..
Recommended Posts