Taramere Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Grrr. Your equilibrium not "you're" equilibrium. Damn this site's editing policies.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 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.I emphatically agree with the luck portion. As for trial and error and discovery, it depends on the individual. I've been through 5 LTRs, including a marriage and a number of STRs, with tranches of dating in between. Of the times I've deviated from my needs of the moment, ignored red flags, have been the times that I've experienced a world of pain. So with this in mind, it's true that I'm no longer open to certain personality types. For someone who hasn't had the experience, they'll have to go through their own heartache, to realize what they need, thus what to look for in a partner. This doesn't mean they should put up with bad behaviours or red flags. No one, male or female, should hang onto someone who treats them with a lack of respect.
blondesmiler Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 . A relationship with his SO is only part of his life, not the whole thing. So if a guy doesn't call, it might mean he's just not into you, or it might mean that he's busy with other aspects of his life. What so he'd not have five/ten minutes spare in a week to call up a girl, then clearly he just isn't into her, as much as he is the rest of his life. So answers the question. If you cannot find ten minutes spare, its not that important too you, so your just not that into her, if you were you'd find ten mintues.
movingonandon Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Related to Taramere's post (what's your phone # again??) it is pretty hard to distinguish "red flags" from your own fears, and in reconciling the two there is no substitute for extended dating (i.e. no self-awareness alone will help). The constant mutual emotional adjustment is exactly what is meant by "working" on the relationship. Absent this adjustment, any relationship will fail. Given how many variables people ocnisder in a mate, it is mathematically imposttible to find a perfect match. Oh well, so much energy is wasted on trying to find 'perfect relationships'. I guess that's the consequence of living too comfortable lives , we're spoiled crybabies . The more I read this forum, the more I begin to believe that the key to happiness is a mail order bride, kids, hookers, scotch, steaks, cigars, and great friends, and focusing on the important stuff :lmao:
Touche Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Related to Taramere's post (what's your phone # again??) it is pretty hard to distinguish "red flags" from your own fears, and in reconciling the two there is no substitute for extended dating (i.e. no self-awareness alone will help). The constant mutual emotional adjustment is exactly what is meant by "working" on the relationship. Absent this adjustment, any relationship will fail. Given how many variables people ocnisder in a mate, it is mathematically imposttible to find a perfect match. Oh well, so much energy is wasted on trying to find 'perfect relationships'. I guess that's the consequence of living too comfortable lives , we're spoiled crybabies . The more I read this forum, the more I begin to believe that the key to happiness is a mail order bride, kids, hookers, scotch, steaks, cigars, and great friends, and focusing on the important stuff :lmao: "Constant mutual emotional adjustment?" Nope. That's never been a part of our relationship. I sure experienced it in the past. All the relationships where there was "constant mutual emotional adjustments" needed, failed. That's just a fancy way of saying square peg/round hole. You're either (mostly) on the same emotional page or you're not. No adjustments needed.
movingonandon Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 "Constant mutual emotional adjustment?" Nope. That's never been a part of our relationship. I sure experienced it in the past. All the relationships where there was "constant mutual emotional adjustments" needed, failed. That's just a fancy way of saying square peg/round hole. You're either (mostly) on the same emotional page or you're not. No adjustments needed. Okay, maybe poor wording, but infering trying to combine incompatible emotional/personality types from this a far-fetched; Even if you're perfectly compatible, it always takes less effort to plop yourself on the couch after work and ignore other's needs, than to make time and listen and find out what's going on with them and figure out what to do. *Unless* you are clones of each other, your internal worlds will never, ever completely align, hence the need to put effort - i.e. live differently than you would if you were completely alone. And if they do (align), i don't want to read about it because it will be boring to death Makes me wonder, what fairy tale the "no effort required" advocates live in
marlena Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 You better start adopting some cats Not a bad idea at all. I love cats. Here´s my experience. Every relationship I´ve had that started off badly ended badly. It never got better only worse. I should have cut my losses early on and spared myself years and years of misery. Instead I tried, I struggled, I stubbornly held on, hoping, putting in even more and more of an effort against all odds. For what? It was a hopeless cause right from the start. Ι should have seen it but I was young and foolish. Not so anymore. Others saw it, my parents for instance but not I. Unfortunately, they could not impart their wisdom to me for such is the nature of wisdom. It is something that you acquire on your own. Today, I would not waste a day on a dysfunctional, problematic relationship. Not one single day. When a relationship is good, it is good from the start because both people care to invest in it. It is never a one-sided thing. We have a saying over here. It goes something like this: A good day begins in the early morning.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Okay, maybe poor wording, but infering trying to combine incompatible emotional/personality types from this a far-fetched; Even if you're perfectly compatible, it always takes less effort to plop yourself on the couch after work and ignore other's needs, than to make time and listen and find out what's going on with them and figure out what to do. *Unless* you are clones of each other, your internal worlds will never, ever completely align, hence the need to put effort - i.e. live differently than you would if you were completely alone. And if they do (align), i don't want to read about it because it will be boring to death Makes me wonder, what fairy tale the "no effort required" advocates live in Why is there effort required to enjoy communicating with each other? Having a simple conversation with a loved one, isn't effort. I enjoy talking to my SO.
Touche Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Okay, maybe poor wording, but infering trying to combine incompatible emotional/personality types from this a far-fetched; Even if you're perfectly compatible, it always takes less effort to plop yourself on the couch after work and ignore other's needs, than to make time and listen and find out what's going on with them and figure out what to do. *Unless* you are clones of each other, your internal worlds will never, ever completely align, hence the need to put effort - i.e. live differently than you would if you were completely alone. And if they do (align), i don't want to read about it because it will be boring to death Makes me wonder, what fairy tale the "no effort required" advocates live in Guess you'll have to wonder then since you say above you don't want to hear about it since it would bore you to death. Oh and sure I live a little differently than I would if I weren't in a relationship (marriage) as does my H but we don't have to twist ourselves into knots to make each other happy and content either.
marlena Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Why is there effort required to enjoy communicating with each other? Having a simple conversation with a loved one, isn't effort. I enjoy talking to my SO. Yes, when it is right, it is that easy.
blondesmiler Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Why is there effort required to enjoy communicating with each other? Having a simple conversation with a loved one, isn't effort. I enjoy talking to my SO. So true, its just getting to that, that seems to be sooo difficult!
Touche Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Why is there effort required to enjoy communicating with each other? Having a simple conversation with a loved one, isn't effort. I enjoy talking to my SO. Funny, I was just going to go back and edit my last post to say something very similar to this but then saw this post. That's it exactly. When two people are really compatible then there's very little work or "effort" required. Look, maybe there are two people who LOVE to come home and plop down on the couch and chillout and NOT talk. To them that works. For two people who like to talk and find out about each other's day, there's no effort in that. It just comes naturally. Now if you pair up a "plopper-don't-talk-to-me-after-work" type with a person who wants to chat about each other's day...well you got yourself a square peg/round hole situation where one or the other will always be feeling put upon.
movingonandon Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Not a bad idea at all. I love cats. Here´s my experience. Every relationship I´ve had that started off badly ended badly. It never got better only worse. I should have cut my losses early on and spared myself years and years of misery. Instead I tried, I struggled, I stubbornly held on, hoping, putting in even more and more of an effort against all odds. For what? It was a hopeless cause right from the start. Ι should have seen it but I was young and foolish. Not so anymore. Others saw it, my parents for instance but not I. Unfortunately, they could not impart their wisdom to me for such is the nature of wisdom. It is something that you acquire on your own. Today, I would not waste a day on a dysfunctional, problematic relationship. Not one single day. When a relationship is good, it is good from the start because both people care to invest in it. It is never a one-sided thing. We have a saying over here. It goes something like this: A good day begins in the early morning. Well, sure, of course, but again - we need to define what constitutes "hopeless cause" vs. "things of mild concern that could be worked out between mature adults". The (dating) world would be a lot happier and efficient place if people were less childish and more realistic and understood that like any partnership, it is more difficult to do htings jointly than independently. It's one thing to run away from dysfunctional relationship, and another - to run away from "something that's simply different and does ot 100% align with my idea of this aspect of life". Wae too many people confuse the latter with the former - that's the recipie for loneliness, not being careful...
fral945 Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Why is there effort required to enjoy communicating with each other? Having a simple conversation with a loved one, isn't effort. I enjoy talking to my SO. That's because you're a woman. I agree with movinonadnon. IME, it takes effort, no matter how great the woman is. It does not come naturally to everyone. Personally I don't see the need for a lot of verbal communication, but I realize it is important for women so I do my best to provide it. At the beginning of a relationship it's much easier. But after a while things get repetitive. For a lot of men (especially married men) silence is golden.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Funny, I was just going to go back and edit my last post to say something very similar to this but then saw this post. That's it exactly. When two people are really compatible then there's very little work or "effort" required. Look, maybe there are two people who LOVE to come home and plop down on the couch and chillout and NOT talk. To them that works. For two people who like to talk and find out about each other's day, there's no effort in that. It just comes naturally. Now if you pair up a "plopper-don't-talk-to-me-after-work" type with a person who wants to chat about each other's day...well you got yourself a square peg/round hole situation where one or the other will always be feeling put upon. Yes, that's exactly it. Compatibility and languages of love. I love to share things with an SO. I need an SO to share things with me. It's above and beyond the bedroom. It's about friendship, trust and respect for each other's judgements and for that matter, ability to discuss issues/interests/external problems/happiness/positive events, the whole nine yards.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 That's because you're a woman. I agree with movinonadnon. IME, it takes effort, no matter how great the woman is. It does not come naturally to everyone. Personally I don't see the need for a lot of verbal communication, but I realize it is important for women so I do my best to provide it. At the beginning of a relationship it's much easier. But after a while things get repetitive. For a lot of men (especially married men) silence is golden. fral, I guarantee that you and I aren't compatible. I don't need to get to know you any better than a few cursory discussions on LS. Not all men are like you and not all women are like me. Two people that mesh, in which both are natural communicators or deathly silent types, are more likely to succeed in relationships. As Touche has put it, square peg/round hole.
Touche Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Yes, that's exactly it. Compatibility and languages of love. I love to share things with an SO. I need an SO to share things with me. It's above and beyond the bedroom. It's about friendship, trust and respect for each other's judgements and for that matter, ability to discuss issues/interests/external problems/happiness/positive events, the whole nine yards. Yes, and it's not solely the domain of the female in the relationship contrary to the little joke above. There are men who actually like to engage that way as well. And nope you're wrong about the married men thing, fral. Fourteen years later and we're still communicators. We can spend hours talking about everything and anything..still. But then sometimes we like a little bit of our own space as well. Occasionally one wants to talk when the other doesn't but that is a rare occurence. When it happens we just respect the wishes of the person who just wants to chill without talking. Since it hardly ever happens it's no biggie. No one feels "put out."
fral945 Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 fral, I guarantee that you and I aren't compatible. I don't need to get to know you any better than a few cursory discussions on LS. I couldn't agree with you more. Not all men are like you and not all women are like me. Two people that mesh, in which both are natural communicators or deathly silent types, are more likely to succeed in relationships. As Touche has put it, square peg/round hole. But the reality is many men are like me. You're denying inherent male/females differences. I know plenty of guys like myself who could ride in a car together, never say a word to each other, and be completely comfortable. Verbal communication is not a man's strong suit. It can be learned, but it isn't innate to most of us.
marlena Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Well, sure, of course, but again - we need to define what constitutes "hopeless cause" vs. "things of mild concern that could be worked out between mature adults". I agree. But what may be minor for one person may be of major imporatnce for another. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that when the groundwork is good, then, differences can and will be worked out because there is a solid basis to begin with. When the foundations are weak and rotten right from the start, no amount of effort will prevent the edifice from collapsing. That's why it is important to inspect the building carefully, so to speak, right from beginning before deciding to settle into it. Oh, and aloneless does not always equate to loneliness.
Touche Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 I couldn't agree with you more. But the reality is many men are like me. You're denying inherent male/females differences. I know plenty of guys like myself who could ride in a car together, never say a word to each other, and be completely comfortable. Verbal communication is not a man's strong suit. It can be learned, but it isn't innate to most of us. Unless you're a "litigator.";) Couldn't resist. Look that's so silly. I've met as many chatterbox men as I have women. I've met many quiet women too...I kind of consider myself pretty quiet for the most part. I don't need constant interaction. But I wouldn't want to be with a man who never talked or had anything interesting to say either...(ugh, my first b/f was like that...SO dull.)
stillafool Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 I don't see anything wrong with the "He's just not that into you" phrase. The same thing can be said "She's just not that into you". It doesn't make you a bad person or undesirable. It just means that particular person is just not that interested in you to the point that they want to pursue you further. Big deal! Then, we pick ourselves up and move on. Are we so fragile that we cannot handle the truth and have to fool ourselves into thinking they did want us but we chose to move on because they didn't meet our needs? When we know it's a lie and we'd jump at the chance if only they would call? How can that attitude help anyone move on from a bad relationship? It is what it is. Lack of interest = move on.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 But then sometimes we like a little bit of our own space as well. Occasionally one wants to talk when the other doesn't but that is a rare occurence. When it happens we just respect the wishes of the person who just wants to chill without talking. Since it hardly ever happens it's no biggie. No one feels "put out."Some of the best times in past relationships, were when we've sat and enjoyed the silence. If you can sit with someone and do that, it's a good thing. Having said all that, it's also very important that each person have their own lives, beyond being together. While similar interests and focus in life are necessary, some differences help to keep things interesting.
Trialbyfire Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 But the reality is many men are like me. You're denying inherent male/females differences. I know plenty of guys like myself who could ride in a car together, never say a word to each other, and be completely comfortable. Verbal communication is not a man's strong suit. It can be learned, but it isn't innate to most of us. I totally disagree. My friends and I can sit in a car just enjoying the music, windows rolled down, sunroof up, just kicking back. These aren't male or female traits. These are individual traits, something that people need to accept of themselves or not. If it's a struggle to communicate, you're either not compatible in your needs or honestly don't understand where the other person is coming from. This would be the difference between superficial and non-superficial relationships.
fral945 Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 I totally disagree. My friends and I can sit in a car just enjoying the music, windows rolled down, sunroof up, just kicking back. These aren't male or female traits. These are individual traits, something that people need to accept of themselves or not. If it's a struggle to communicate, you're either not compatible in your needs or honestly don't understand where the other person is coming from. This would be the difference between superficial and non-superficial relationships. Ok, I’ll agree to disagree. I believe men and women have certain traits and behaviors that we are each more prone to and you don’t seem to. Do you think there are there any behaviors/traits that are more likely to be male or female? Or do you think it’s all an individual thing, irrespective of whether or not the person has a penis or a vagina? You seem to be very averse to stereotypes and generalizations. It's ok if you're the exception to the rule, but that doesn't make the stereotype or generalization untrue. I just look around at the people and the world around me and I see behavioral patterns that tend to congregate more so in each sex.
Touche Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Ok, I’ll agree to disagree. I believe men and women have certain traits and behaviors that we are each more prone to and you don’t seem to. Do you think there are there any behaviors/traits that are more likely to be male or female? Or do you think it’s all an individual thing, irrespective of whether or not the person has a penis or a vagina? You seem to be very averse to stereotypes and generalizations. It's ok if you're the exception to the rule, but that doesn't make the stereotype or generalization untrue. I just look around at the people and the world around me and I see behavioral patterns that tend to congregate more so in each sex. I agree with the above but when it comes to choosing a mate it's irrelevant. I happen to have some traits that are normally considered more "male" and my H has some traits most people would consider as typically "female." In other ways we might fit the stereotypes for our gender. But it's all moot in the end since what really matters is finding someone we're compatible with.
Recommended Posts