Wanting a Taken man

[SueBee3490]

Then in that situation, it's committed - you are on the basis of partners and SO regardless of whether there are official vows or rings exchanged...... that to me is the SAME as a M, but it's certainly not something you'd call bf/gf is it? I wouldn't anyway.

 

I answered my own question - yes this is your opinion not the OP's that you believe in the situation Frannie described that since they live together it is the SAME as M.

[Lookingforward]

What if he leaves out the "but he's not sure she's the one", then is he still fair game to you? If he just says he has a gf and is making it clear that you know that, you still going to crap on the relationship?

 

She's not MY g/f so I don't see that I'd be the one "crapping on the R" as you so nicely put it....... if he's "committed" then HE did that by approaching me

[Lookingforward]

I answered my own question - yes this is your opinion not the OP's that you believe in the situation Frannie described that since they live together it is the SAME as M.

 

you can assume that yes, as the OP never even brought UP living together LOL

[twice_shy]

She's not MY g/f so I don't see that I'd be the one "crapping on the R" as you so nicely put it....... if he's "committed" then HE did that by approaching me

 

If he approached you, then its a different story. He isn't being true to his gf and she can then do better.

 

But something tells me you see a guy fair game no matter what the circumstance as long as he doesn't have a ring on his finger.

 

Ok fair enough. One could only hope you get yourself a bf that you are head over heels for, then someone that has this same mindset sweeps him right out from under you.

[Owl]

you can assume that yes, as the OP never even brought UP living together LOL

 

LOL...the OP hasn't posted since the first page of this thread, back on the 27th of May.

 

I'm figuring that makes this ALL a moot point, no?

[Lookingforward]

If he approached you, then its a different story. He isn't being true to his gf and she can then do better.

 

But something tells me you see a guy fair game no matter what the circumstance as long as he doesn't have a ring on his finger.

 

Ok fair enough. One could only hope you get yourself a bf that you are head over heels for, then someone that has this same mindset sweeps him right out from under you.

 

I'm a little older than the whole bf/gf gig anyway so it's a moot point and I really am tired of responding to someone who only reads and responds to PARTS of my posts......

[Lookingforward]

LOL...the OP hasn't posted since the first page of this thread, back on the 27th of May.

 

I'm figuring that makes this ALL a moot point, no?

 

partially , but it is interesting to see how many women there are out there terrified that their committed R may not be so committed after all....

[OWoman]

I'm a little older than the whole bf/gf gig anyway

 

I don't think I ever had anything I called a bf. Even in high school. It just sounds so... high school.

 

I guess it's like dating. I've never dated. Seems an absurd concept to me.

[2sunny]

to the OP.

 

he knows how to find you if he wants to. he knows how you feel about his situation with his girlfriend.

 

if he thinks it's important enough to want to see you - he will break it off with her and find a way to get in touch with you.

 

only posted in case the OP comes back to read this...

[twice_shy]

I'm a little older than the whole bf/gf gig anyway so it's a moot point and I really am tired of responding to someone who only reads and responds to PARTS of my posts......

 

Feel free to bow out any time. And everyone responds to only parts of posts. Rarely does anyone respond to each and every little PART of each and every post. Get real.

[twice_shy]

partially , but it is interesting to see how many women there are out there terrified that their committed R may not be so committed after all....

 

Well with women like you out there who see everyone's R partner as fair game, can you blame them?

[Lookingforward]

Well with women like you out there who see everyone's R partner as fair game, can you blame them?

 

Actually I don't, but you're free to think whatever you wish

[blind_otter]

partially , but it is interesting to see how many women there are out there terrified that their committed R may not be so committed after all....

 

I wonder why people who are dating even bother to have the "exclusivity talk" which is often touted on LS, if their relationships are nothing more than play acting at being married.

 

There really should be no need for an exclusivity discussion, if bf/gf relationships are not "real".

[OWoman]

Well with women like you out there who see everyone's R partner as fair game, can you blame them?

 

Wow LF, that's some rampant - and diverse - sexual appetite you must have! :lmao: :lmao:

 

What happened - TS hit on you and you blew him off? Why the personalised attack, here?

[twice_shy]

Actually I don't, but you're free to think whatever you wish

 

Well then it must have been someone that hacked your account and came in here and posted:

 

"to me having a gf or bf is what you do when you're seeing how it goes and whether you want to take it to the next level....... a bf or gf is just a little more than a friend - it implies you're romantically involved but that's all"

 

OR

 

"He has no ring on his finger and she has none on hers apparently.... to my mind that means he is STILL on the market"

 

So did you or did you not insinuate that someone's bf is fair game because of lack of a ring?

[twice_shy]

Wow LF, that's some rampant - and diverse - sexual appetite you must have! :lmao: :lmao:

 

Geez, I said women like her. She obviously doesn't respect the R another woman has with another man just because there is no ring.

 

Her words speak for themselves.

 

 

What happened - TS hit on you and you blew him off? Why the personalised attack, here?

 

Why aren't you asking LF why the personalized attack on neverendingsaga?

[Lookingforward]

personalised attack ? Fyi as you apparently didn't read the thread from the beginning - this is what was posted -

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by neverendingsaga

wow thats a sad concept to me. i better make sure my next committed boyfriend knows he cant troll the market just b/c theres no ring on his finger. thanks for pointing out that some ppl actually feel this way, yikes.

 

to me a RELATIONSHIP equals a commitment. usually ppl talk about these things before they start referring to someone as there G/F

 

your next "committed bf" ? But wasn't your last one M ? or does that only matter when it's you he's "committed" to ?

 

just wondering how you reconcile the two pov you've expressed

 

 

Sorry, but I was just curious - I don't see it as a personalised attack, although since then I have been subjected to some on this thread......

[neverendingsaga]

personalised attack ? Fyi as you apparently didn't read the thread from the beginning - this is what was posted -

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by neverendingsaga

wow thats a sad concept to me. i better make sure my next committed boyfriend knows he cant troll the market just b/c theres no ring on his finger. thanks for pointing out that some ppl actually feel this way, yikes.

 

to me a RELATIONSHIP equals a commitment. usually ppl talk about these things before they start referring to someone as there G/F

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but I was just curious - I don't see it as a personalised attack, although since then I have been subjected to some on this thread......

 

it was a personalised attack B/C i wasnt even talking to you or about my own situation, i was talking about the subject at hand & you turned it into something personal about me. which IMO didnt even relate to the subject at hand. yes my XMM was committed & yes i think a BF is committed to his GF unless SHE thinks otherwise. so to pick on me is silly. i agree w/ twice-shy that it was a personalised attack & completely unnecessary. but whatever im dropping it. but ive noticed theres more fighting & bickering going on on this board then actual advcie sometimes. its really annoying. some of these posts come off as so immature its laughable. everybody thinks there right about everything. all i was posting was my personal opinion ppl which im allowed to have last time i checked...

[pentacle]

this relates to our understanding of commitment vs exclusivity - not the same thing in the UK at least.

 

We expect bf/gf to see one person at a time so there is an expectation of exclusivity ie seeing one person romantically. But technically, socially and legally we are single and available until such time as we marry or live with someone then there is an expectation of a long term commitment. So the guy in the OP was doing nothing wrong, he was making a social contact and seeing how he felt and he is free to do so - culturally I am always surprised that this is described as disgusting behaviour - he's not 'taken' or in a long term committed relationship, he is seeing someone romantically at the moment and is not in a formal committed relationship. If he wants to pursue the new interest romantically he is expected to break up the bf/gf relationship - it's a social nicety enabling everyone to move on in a new social identity to form new social relationships.

 

The more problematic issue is where the bf or gf is continually on the hunt for another partner - these should not have any bf or gf at all as they clearly are not truly romantically interested in their gf/bf. There is no evidence here that the guy in the OP is that type though.

 

Is it really that much difference elsewhere?

[OWoman]

this relates to our understanding of commitment vs exclusivity - not the same thing in the UK at least.

 

We expect bf/gf to see one person at a time so there is an expectation of exclusivity ie seeing one person romantically. But technically, socially and legally we are single and available until such time as we marry or live with someone then there is an expectation of a long term commitment. So the guy in the OP was doing nothing wrong, he was making a social contact and seeing how he felt and he is free to do so - culturally I am always surprised that this is described as disgusting behaviour - he's not 'taken' or in a long term committed relationship, he is seeing someone romantically at the moment and is not in a formal committed relationship. If he wants to pursue the new interest romantically he is expected to break up the bf/gf relationship - it's a social nicety enabling everyone to move on in a new social identity to form new social relationships.

 

The more problematic issue is where the bf or gf is continually on the hunt for another partner - these should not have any bf or gf at all as they clearly are not truly romantically interested in their gf/bf. There is no evidence here that the guy in the OP is that type though.

 

Is it really that much difference elsewhere?

 

Well put, Pentacle - I think few would argue with your description. (But watch, there will no doubt be some... )

[frannie]

Then in that situation, it's committed - you are on the basis of partners and SO regardless of whether there are official vows or rings exchanged...... that to me is the SAME as a M, but it's certainly not something you'd call bf/gf is it? I wouldn't anyway.

 

As I said perhaps it's the terminology that's the problem for me in this. The OP in this thread was talking about a guy who has been "seeing" his gf for 6 months, but "isn't sure she's the ONE" - doesn't sound all that committed to me.

 

and FWIW I don't think you know where my country is LOL

 

OK, so you'd call that 'partner' or something? I think you're probably right, it's about terminology. However you sounded like you were saying that anything BUT married was NOT commited, and therefore was 'fair game'.

 

No, I don't know where your country is, hence I said 'maybe' in 'your country'. You have 'lost in the USA' as your location but I know a lot of people don't put down their actual location.

 

And yes, not that it matters now as Owl pointed out... but 'g/f of six months' and not living together and with the ages they are (I think), no, it's nowhere near commited at all.

[Owl]

We expect bf/gf to see one person at a time so there is an expectation of exclusivity ie seeing one person romantically. But technically, socially and legally we are single and available until such time as we marry or live with someone then there is an expectation of a long term commitment. So the guy in the OP was doing nothing wrong, he was making a social contact and seeing how he felt and he is free to do so - culturally I am always surprised that this is described as disgusting behaviour - he's not 'taken' or in a long term committed relationship, he is seeing someone romantically at the moment and is not in a formal committed relationship. If he wants to pursue the new interest romantically he is expected to break up the bf/gf relationship - it's a social nicety enabling everyone to move on in a new social identity to form new social relationships.

 

The more problematic issue is where the bf or gf is continually on the hunt for another partner - these should not have any bf or gf at all as they clearly are not truly romantically interested in their gf/bf. There is no evidence here that the guy in the OP is that type though.

 

Is it really that much difference elsewhere?

 

Here's where communication is CRITICAL, even early on in a relationship.

 

Its called an "implied contract".

 

As you said, many people EXPECT exclusivity and commitment in a bf/gf kind of relationship. They feel it was a commitment that was non-verbally agreed to as part of their relationship.

 

If both partners DON'T feel that way, they should be TALKING about it. If one partner has no intention of exclusivity, he/she should CLEARLY COMMUNICATE that intent.

 

Personally, I agree that a dating relationship is not a committed one. BUT...where the problem comes in is when both partners in that relationship have different expectations of it.

 

Now, I have to add in all fairness that even when it IS clearly spelled out, some people don't want to believe that's the way its really going to be. They hear what their partner says about a non-exclusive relationship...but they still expect/hope that their partner will remain exclusive. You see this more in really young people than anything else.

 

Bottomline is simply...COMMUNICATE (which means both stating your position AND hearing and heeding the other partner) with each other clearly about your expectations and goals.

[OWoman]

Now, I have to add in all fairness that even when it IS clearly spelled out, some people don't want to believe that's the way its really going to be. They hear what their partner says about a non-exclusive relationship...but they still expect/hope that their partner will remain exclusive. You see this more in really young people than anything else.

 

 

And where they've been together since young. Where they both agreed, at that stage, that they wouldn't be exclusive... but over time, and perhaps reinforced through lack of evidence otherwise, the expectation of ONE partner shifts such that they assume things have changed for BOTH of them, while the other partner holds to the original verbal agreement on the assumption that that was the last agreement, so it remains in force until superceded by another. And then, one day, acts on it.

 

And the sky shatters.

[Owl]

Again...lack of communication (specifically about the change in perceptions) was the key breakdown.

 

But...that lack of communication is often DELIBERATE on the side of those who want to cheat.

 

They NEVER tell their spouse that they're going to go sleep with someone else. They COULD. But they don't...because at the end of it all they know that they are WRONG for violating their agreement (no matter how old) and seek to avoid the consequences for as long as they possibly can.

 

They COULD sit down and discuss the "state of the union" with their spouse...but they'd rather ASSUME that things have changed on BOTH sides because it suits their purpose to do so.

 

Hence the "all cheaters ARE liars". Even if its a lie by omission.

[OWoman]

Again...lack of communication (specifically about the change in perceptions) was the key breakdown.

 

But...that lack of communication is often DELIBERATE on the side of those who want to cheat.

 

They NEVER tell their spouse that they're going to go sleep with someone else. They COULD. But they don't...because at the end of it all they know that they are WRONG for violating their agreement (no matter how old) and seek to avoid the consequences for as long as they possibly can.

 

They COULD sit down and discuss the "state of the union" with their spouse...but they'd rather ASSUME that things have changed on BOTH sides because it suits their purpose to do so.

 

Hence the "all cheaters ARE liars". Even if its a lie by omission.

 

Owl - in the scenario I sketched the agreement was for non-exclusivity. Thus, the assumption is not that they've both changed, but that the agreement remains in force. Morally, they have the high ground on that. Whether or not their partner agrees - it is the "BS" who has changed their assumption unilaterally without informing the "CS" - whether or not those changed assumptions are conscious or deliberate.