Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 It's interesting that you think my relationships fizzled out because they didn't contain drama. Actually they just fizzled, even with trust, respect, willingness to make it work etc. Sometimes you just wake up one day and realise you're in the wrong place. Perhaps it's time to figure out why that happened in your relationships. Love doesn't die if the two parties are actively fueling it. Potentially, maybe there wasn't love to begin with, only infatuation that fizzled to nothing since there wasn't a solid foundation beneath it.
CommitmentPhobe Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Perhaps it's time to figure out why that happened in your relationships. Love doesn't die if the two parties are actively fueling it. Potentially, maybe there wasn't love to begin with, only infatuation that fizzled to nothing since there wasn't a solid foundation beneath it. See, now you're making it sound like science. Perhaps it's time for you to stop thinking everything can be figured out?
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 See, now you're making it sound like science. Perhaps it's time for you to stop thinking everything can be figured out? Perhaps it's time to start thinking about the only constant in non-viable relationships. The more you realize what makes you tick, the less likely you're going to play the blame game of always pointing the finger at the opposite gender or the other person. Not every relationship is meant to last forever. That doesn't mean those relationships didn't have good times. No one person is perfect but that doesn't mean that people need to put up with bad behaviours or core incompatibilities. If people never learn anything about each relationship that is non-viable, it will always be everyone else's fault. To learn, you have to own your own portion of the problems.
CommitmentPhobe Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Perhaps it's time to start thinking about the only constant in non-viable relationships. The more you realize what makes you tick, the less likely you're going to play the blame game of always pointing the finger at the opposite gender or the other person. Not every relationship is meant to last forever. That doesn't mean those relationships didn't have good times. No one person is perfect but that doesn't mean that people need to put up with bad behaviours or core incompatibilities. If people never learn anything about each relationship that is non-viable, it will always be everyone else's fault. To learn, you have to own your own portion of the problems. Thing is though, I'm not playing any sort of blame game. I'm not sure where you're getting this from. You appear to want to do a psychological desconstruction of something that doesn't require it. That says more about your own state of mind than mine. The constant factor in these viable relationships is that I didn't feel like settling with that person. Nothing more, nothing less, as I've already explained to you.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Thing is though, I'm not playing any sort of blame game. I'm not sure where you're getting this from. You appear to want to do a psychological desconstruction of something that doesn't require it. That says more about your own state of mind than mine. The constant factor in these viable relationships is that I didn't feel like settling with that person. Nothing more, nothing less, as I've already explained to you. So, it dovetails into the theme of this thread. He just not that into you, so no need to put any more effort into a relationship with someone who isn't going to fuel it on his side. Walk!
Star Gazer Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 How many people asserting this are in relationships like this? I'm in one. How many people do you know who are in relationships like this? All the HAPPY couples I know.
Touche Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 I love this debate about putting "hard work" into a relationship. Poppycock. I've said it a zillion times on here. If it's too much work, or constant work, then it's not a good relationship. You shouldn't have to constantly be "working" on a relationship for it to be good. If you are, then something is very wrong. Maybe it's a case of square peg/round hole. Good relationships are for the most part, effortless and yes, easy. Even when there's conflict it's not a HUGE deal because the two people involved are on the same page regarding compromise, negotiation and doing what's right for the greater good..i.e. the relationship. Basically, "If it takes effort, it is not worth doing" Only the very immature bail at the first sign of conflict. But the smart ones bail when the conflicts either can't be resolved ever or deteriorate into power plays and/or name calling, etc. That type of thing almost never improves. Usually it just gets worse. So yeah, if it takes too much effort, then no, it's most certainly not worth "doing" when it comes to relationships.
CommitmentPhobe Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 So, it dovetails into the theme of this thread. He just not that into you, so no need to put any more effort into a relationship with someone who isn't going to fuel it on his side. Walk! They didn't need to walk, I finished with them, at the point I decided I just wasn't that into them anymore.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 They didn't need to walk, I finished with them, at the point I decided I just wasn't that into them anymore. CP, I don't understand your perspective. It's almost like it offends you that women aren't willing to put up with bad behaviours, that men or you, specifically, always have the upperhand. That's not what this thread is about. It's about a book and a movie, that discusses what should be blatantly obvious to women when engaged in a relationship or dating experience with a man who isn't all in or is incapable of being all in. Even if he's all in, if the two aren't compatible, it's an exercise in frustration and futility, to constantly be bashing your head against a brick wall. This is the type of thing that causes unnecessary drama in relationships. You can work until you're blue in the face but no amount of effort is going to create a viable healthy and functional relationship.
Isolde Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Does anyone here honestly find it easy to live with themselves? Being alive is hard work, whether you're alone or with someone else. I agree that a relationship should be minimal effort so as not to add to life's stresses but I also believe that where you don't put effort in, nothing can bloom. My parents are only together because they were stubborn as hell for years and years, determined to remain together no matter what sacrifices it took [but yes, I guess the basic compatibility was always there]. I feel like these days people have become somewhat lazy about relationships.
CommitmentPhobe Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 CP, I don't understand your perspective. It's almost like it offends you that women aren't willing to put up with bad behaviours, that men or you, specifically, always have the upperhand. I don't understand yours, or why you have to go on the offensive so much. I am well behaved and have no "upper hand", I am not sure why you think I am offended at all. I only came in to state that even if something starts of naturally and it seems like the guy is all in, it sure as hell can flip in the blink of an eye. So I don't like the rose coloured simplistic view of everything being that black and white. Relationships can start out umming and ahhing and end up solid, relationships can start off really well and go down the tubes really quickly. It really doesn't take much to figure that out, nor does it need a desconstruction.
movingonandon Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 So, it dovetails into the theme of this thread. He just not that into you, so no need to put any more effort into a relationship with someone who isn't going to fuel it on his side. Walk! Yep, and that's perfect - that's how things work themselves out (for guys) - she'll stick around until she finds out you ain't getting married . There is a serious, and strange, and amusing gender difference here - in all my life so far I have not encountered a single guy bitchng about his girflriend being hesitant about getting married! In fact, the less the subject is brought up, the happiers guys are . But, to equate this with being unloving or indiferent is misleading. You can love somebody very much, but it says nowhere that this should be accompanied with wedding bells. That's a completely separate thing. So, "Not being THAT" into someone (i.e. so into them to happily swallow the thought of marriage), doesn't mean that you don't like them or respect them - you do, you just don't necessarily want to see them in 10 years . So, if marriage is bothering them, it's their problem . Perfectly legitimate, and desireable, to walk away. Actions have consequences - in this case the consequence for the woman is deciding whether marriage is more important to her than the relationship she's having, for the guy the consequence is understanding that the woman may not stick around unless he decides it is worth dealing with the marriage stuff. But, to imply that if the relaitonship is not a juggernaut to marriage this means that it is not a good relationship is just *silly*
Isolde Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Relationships can start out umming and ahhing and end up solid, relationships can start off really well and go down the tubes really quickly. It really doesn't take much to figure that out, nor does it need a desconstruction. I agree. With my best friend and her BF, it seemed for two years like it wasn't gonna work out. There were several red flags from him. They've never been closer now. There are just no guarantees.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 I don't understand yours, or why you have to go on the offensive so much. I am well behaved and have no "upper hand", I am not sure why you think I am offended at all. I only came in to state that even if something starts of naturally and it seems like the guy is all in, it sure as hell can flip in the blink of an eye. So I don't like the rose coloured simplistic view of everything being that black and white. Relationships can start out umming and ahhing and end up solid, relationships can start off really well and go down the tubes really quickly. It really doesn't take much to figure that out, nor does it need a desconstruction. I'm not on the offensive. Just stating my point, as you are and trying to understand your perspective. I agree that nothing is guaranteed. There are no safe harbours in life. But...we'll have to disagree on viability v. non-viability and understanding what makes a person tick, to understand what's needed to have a viable relationship. If you don't even understand yourself, how can anyone understand anyone else's needs, within a relationship? Anyways, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, again.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Yep, and that's perfect - that's how things work themselves out (for guys) - she'll stick around until she finds out you ain't getting married . There is a serious, and strange, and amusing gender difference here - in all my life so far I have not encountered a single guy bitchng about his girflriend being hesitant about getting married! In fact, the less the subject is brought up, the happiers guys are . But, to equate this with being unloving or indiferent is misleading. You can love somebody very much, but it says nowhere that this should be accompanied with wedding bells. That's a completely separate thing. So, "Not being THAT" into someone (i.e. so into them to happily swallow the thought of marriage), doesn't mean that you don't like them or respect them - you do, you just don't necessarily want to see them in 10 years . So, if marriage is bothering them, it's their problem . Perfectly legitimate, and desireable, to walk away. Actions have consequences - in this case the consequence for the woman is deciding whether marriage is more important to her than the relationship she's having, for the guy the consequence is understanding that the woman may not stick around unless he decides it is worth dealing with the marriage stuff. But, to imply that if the relaitonship is not a juggernaut to marriage this means that it is not a good relationship is just *silly* You're projecting and I'm pretty certain, haven't read the book or watched the movie. It has nothing to do with wedding bells, what-so-ever.
CommitmentPhobe Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 I'm not on the offensive. Just stating my point, as you are and trying to understand your perspective. I agree that nothing is guaranteed. There are no safe harbours in life. But...we'll have to disagree on viability v. non-viability and understanding what makes a person tick, to understand what's needed to have a viable relationship. If you don't even understand yourself, how can anyone understand anyone else's needs, within a relationship? Anyways, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, again. We're not disagreeing over viability, what we're disagreeing on is whether you can tell whether something is viable until a significant period of time has gone by, however well you understand yourself, and however viable it appears to be. And also whether that viability changes as everything else does over the passage of time. You can go into something where all the signs are good that fits your needs and then after a period time you realise that those things aren't going to last. Conversely you can get into something that builds and builds and builds into something that fits your needs better than you first understood. Personally I think you need a lot of luck as well as a sense of yourself.
Touche Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Does anyone here honestly find it easy to live with themselves? Uhm...yeah. I do. Being alive is hard work, whether you're alone or with someone else. I agree that a relationship should be minimal effort so as not to add to life's stresses but I also believe that where you don't put effort in, nothing can bloom. Effort, yes. Constant hard "work" nope. Life can be tough enough. Your relationship should be your "soft spot" to land as they say. Not cause further strife. My parents are only together because they were stubborn as hell for years and years, determined to remain together no matter what sacrifices it took [but yes, I guess the basic compatibility was always there]. There ya go. They were always compatible. I feel like these days people have become somewhat lazy about relationships. And as for this: I agree. With my best friend and her BF, it seemed for two years like it wasn't gonna work out. There were several red flags from him. They've never been closer now. There are just no guarantees. Have the red flags just gone away? What happened? Maybe they're closer now and I don't mean to be negative but how long have things been good now. I mean for two years it was so bad that they almost didn't make it, right? So how long has it been good? If it's less than 2 years, I'd be skeptical and call this a honeymoon period. You're right. There are no guarantees but if you know what to look for, and with a little bit of luck, you can sure beat the odds.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 We're not disagreeing over viability, what we're disagreeing on is whether you can tell whether something is viable until a significant period of time has gone by, however well you understand yourself, and however viable it appears to be. And also whether that viability changes as everything else does over the passage of time. You can go into something where all the signs are good that fits your needs and then after a period time you realise that those things aren't going to last. Conversely you can get into something that builds and builds and builds into something that fits your needs better than you first understood. Personally I think you need a lot of luck as well as a sense of yourself. One thing I've noticed is that the more you know about yourself, the more you're going to know sooner, rather than later, what might be viable. That's the good thing about this book. It kicks women into realizing what a red flag is and not to make excuses for red flags, just to "keep" a relationship going. We've all excused bad behaviours. Maturity and experience tell us the difference between a red flag and an endearing flaw.
movingonandon Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 You're projecting and I'm pretty certain, haven't read the book or watched the movie. It has nothing to do with wedding bells, what-so-ever. True, i haven't seen it - I base this conclusion on projecting and on the trailer for the movie - "Stop being nice to me unless you're going to marry me" :laugh:, sufficiently pathetic statement to illustrate my point
CommitmentPhobe Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 One thing I've noticed is that the more you know about yourself, the more you're going to know sooner, rather than later, what might be viable. That's the good thing about this book. It kicks women into realizing what a red flag is and not to make excuses for red flags, just to "keep" a relationship going. We've all excused bad behaviours. Maturity and experience tell us the difference between a red flag and an endearing flaw. Yes I don't disagree with you there, but I think the irony is that you have to learn what works from your successes as well as your failures to know what's viable. That means, at some point during the trial and error discovery process, you have to have some luck and be open to things that you haven't tried before. The problem I have with taking a position that you know what works and doesn't is that it's dangerous to become a closed book.
movingonandon Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 We're not disagreeing over viability, what we're disagreeing on is whether you can tell whether something is viable until a significant period of time has gone by, however well you understand yourself, and however viable it appears to be. And also whether that viability changes as everything else does over the passage of time. You can go into something where all the signs are good that fits your needs and then after a period time you realise that those things aren't going to last. Conversely you can get into something that builds and builds and builds into something that fits your needs better than you first understood. Personally I think you need a lot of luck as well as a sense of yourself. This is a very good point, because over time you learn that not everything you considered "dealbreakers" are actually dealbreakers - some of these ideas are just the result of being a dumbass . Alternatively, you can discover that someone has qualities that you comletely ignored on your "list", but actually make you very happy. Either way, self-awareness is key, of course, but in the absence of actual interaction and relationship experience it is not sufficient. Nobody will ever match my "requirements" 100%, so I'm willing to listen and adjust
Taramere Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 The book/movie helps women get over the ILLUSIONS/DELUSIONS about men, and shocks them into realizing that they have been making EXCUSES for the men. I like what Taramere said about how she would respond to a friend by saying that "You can't read a man's mind. It's safer to assume, at this point, that he only wants to be friends until you have clear evidence that he wants more." Great advice, and very tactful! Yay! Thank you nicki. I remember what a therapist told me years ago when I was recovering my mind after an abusive relationship. It stills helps me to this day. She said: "If you feel like you are being ignored, you are being ignored. If you feel like your feelings are being dismissed, your feelings are being dismissed. If you feel like you aren't a priority, you aren't a priority. Stop making excuses for a guy's bad behavior." I think a lot depends on who you are in everyday life. If a person feels in all kinds of situations (and with lots of different people) that they're being ignored or dismissed, then it might be that they need to learn how to assert themselves more effectively....or it could be that they're being overly negative in their perceptions. I think what your therapist was saying was "listen to your instincts." If, your involvement with someone is bringing unhappy confusion into your life right from the offing, then it's a pretty bad sign. I agree with the others who say that it shouldn't be like that when you first meet someone. It's supposed to be a fun time, so why invest in something that makes you unhappy and negative from day one? Whatever the reasons (he's not into you....he's implementing some "how to condition women into behaving the way you want them to behave" theory....he's been burned in the past, and is projecting the bitterness onto you...), the crucial point is that you're equilibrium is being disturbed in a bad way. The person is bringing more negative drama than positive excitement into your life. There's a big difference, though, between a guy bringing all kinds of negative things into your world and a guy failing to guess and meet all your emotional needs from day one. That's where the "HJNTIY" thing troubles me a little. If it's about ditching someone who's treating you badly - either deliberately or through lack of caring - then that's fine. If people who know you well are seeing negative changes in your mood that have come about since you got involved with someone, then that's something to listen to. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure there are loads of things about me that I'm sure wouldn't fit some black and white checklist as to what a woman should be, how she should behave in order to demonstrate that her feelings are genuine etc. I wouldn't expect a man who'd clicked with me to ditch me just because I didn't meet all the items in such a checklist. If he did, I'd think he was an imbecile. Likewise I don't think I'd be letting some patronising pop psychology book poke its nose into my emotional world and get all tough loving and dictatorial with me about how I should run it. My overall feeling about that "He's just not that into you" thing is that it taps into people's insecurities and confirms them. Which is no doubt why it's so successful, and why so many people hail it as some sort of great truth. To quote Pretty Woman "the bad stuff is always easier to believe."
clv0116 Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 .... to imply that if the relaitonship is not a juggernaut to marriage this means that it is not a good relationship is just *silly* Insightful comment.
tincanman99 Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Speaking as a guy I have learned NOT to aggressively pursue women in the beginning because they will label you as needy, lack of self confidence, etc... You could label that behavior as "not being into you" but.... I know it sounds kind of bizarre but if you are totally into a girl and show her that you really like her - ie. make time to see her, knock yourself out for her than generally the women back off and make it even harder than it needs to be. On the other hand if you dole out attention like pieces of chocolate they generally love it. Its not a case of that I am not into you but rather that if I show you how much I am int you, YOU WILL RUN. Dont know if it holds true 100% of the time but it is what it is.
Recommended Posts