torn_curtain Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 They have never been serious about anyone except for maybe one unrequited infatuation type thing. They have many people interested in them but they have only ever had flings because they never feel the same way. Basically they are ridiculously picky. It's not at all like they have a checklist or rigidly defined type but there is some sort of "aura" or hard to pinpoint combination of traits that they respond to--and they see that in you. Is this normal? Is it possible that they're just really specific about what they want and you're it or is it more of a red flag?
Rinas Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 My current boyfriend has been with numerous other women, yet claimed to have never loved any of them. He told me that to him it was more about lust, and he never got to the point of love with any of them. He has already told me that he sees me differently than them. However, it's not an issue to me, as I'm just seeing where things go. I have no expectations, nor do I feel he needs to fall in love with me. It's far too soon to think quick into the future when we can fizzle out at any given time. My ex guy had only been with me, and he fell in love quickly.
Mrlonelyone Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 If the person telling you this is over the age of 25 don't belive them. They felt in love with and loved by someone. They may think because it didn't end like a fairy tale that it wasn't real. This means one of two things. 1) They are a liar and/or just trying to sweet talk you. 2) They have immature and unrealistic expectations for love lasting "forever".
Rinas Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I had been with my ex for over 5 years, and I wasn't ever truly "in love" with him. I regret staying with him for so long. Sometimes it takes the right person, and connection. However, I'm not over the age of 25. No such thing as fairy tales
zlatnapolja Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 They have never been serious about anyone except for maybe one unrequited infatuation type thing. They have many people interested in them but they have only ever had flings because they never feel the same way. Basically they are ridiculously picky. It's not at all like they have a checklist or rigidly defined type but there is some sort of "aura" or hard to pinpoint combination of traits that they respond to--and they see that in you. Is this normal? Is it possible that they're just really specific about what they want and you're it or is it more of a red flag? It sounds wonderful, enjoy it! This is not a red flag:) Maybe he has issues, but this itself is a good thing.
ptp Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I had been with my ex for over 5 years, and I wasn't ever truly "in love" with him. I regret staying with him for so long. Sometimes it takes the right person, and connection. However, I'm not over the age of 25. No such thing as fairy tales Did you ever tell him that you loved him? did he tell you?
Rinas Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Did you ever tell him that you loved him? did he tell you? He told me after 4 months of dating. I didn't say anything. Also, up to 3 years later I felt pressured, I told him I loved him as a person, however I wasn't in love with him. It's a regret of mine. I will never tell someone that I love them unless it's true. Living & learning.
ptp Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 He told me after 4 months of dating. I didn't say anything. Also, up to 3 years later I felt pressured, I told him I loved him as a person, however I wasn't in love with him. It's a regret of mine. I will never tell someone that I love them unless it's true. Living & learning. The other day me and my GF were in the bathroom just getting ready for bed and out of nowhere she blurts out "you know I really love you". I haven't felt that happy in a long time and now I am not sure if she really meant it.
Rinas Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 The other day me and my GF were in the bathroom just getting ready for bed and out of nowhere she blurts out "you know I really love you". I haven't felt that happy in a long time and now I am not sure if she really meant it. My relationship dynamics were far different with my ex then the average couple. If your girlfriend shows you that she cares through her actions, and you feel that it is genuine then don't doubt it. Embrace it! I know that this forum can often bring us to expect the worst and be cynical, however, trust her and what you have.
sm1tten Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 My ex told me that he had never been in love, and I believe him. (And in the two years we were together, I was not in love with him either.) I think he is emotionally too distant and cut off from other people to feel those kinds of deep connections. However, I have definitely been in love and just because it didn't work out doesn't make it any less real to me.
zengirl Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 They have never been serious about anyone except for maybe one unrequited infatuation type thing. They have many people interested in them but they have only ever had flings because they never feel the same way. Basically they are ridiculously picky. It's not at all like they have a checklist or rigidly defined type but there is some sort of "aura" or hard to pinpoint combination of traits that they respond to--and they see that in you. Is this normal? Is it possible that they're just really specific about what they want and you're it or is it more of a red flag? To the title: My high school sweetheart, but we grew up together and started dating when he was 16. But that's not really what you're talking about. I don't know at what age it's "normal" to have been in love, but I am skeptical of those who had LTRs but claim never to have been in love. Either they treat "in love" as some sort of mythical thing, they don't invest enough in their LTRs, or they re-write history after the fact and are the kind of people who say, "I thought I was in love at the time." (If you thought you were in love, you were in love! I'm going with Adama from BG on this: "That's all love is; thoughts.") None of these are appealing to me. If the guy has never had a LTR, it really depends on age, your experience, and what you're looking for. Though people who claim to be ridiculously picky are usually emotionally unavailable in some way. That said, emotional unavailability isn't something you are forever---it ebbs and flows and sometimes dissipates. At any rate, I'd be skeptical of the dynamic you describe, no matter what the case or reasoning is. And not just because at this stage in my life, I prefer men who have loved and been loved and understand what a loving relationship is. But because it sounds like an overly romantic idea, which means it's either a lie or you're dealing with someone fairly emotionally flighty. It's exactly those types that make some folks feel most "special" though, so I could see why he'd be sought after. The severity of how bad an offender he is would be in comparison to his youth (for instance, that attitude is entirely fine if he's under 20 and really bull**** if he's over 30, and varying degrees of appropriateness in between).
GoodOnPaper Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I am skeptical of those who had LTRs but claim never to have been in love. Either they treat "in love" as some sort of mythical thing, they don't invest enough in their LTRs, or they re-write history after the fact and are the kind of people who say, "I thought I was in love at the time." (If you thought you were in love, you were in love! I disagree -- when you really struggle to attract potential partners, it's easy to think that you may be in love with your partner when you are actually in love with having an intimate relationship . . . period. And this is something that is difficult to identify except in retrospect. Just from my experience, looking back at my few exes and my relationships with them -- I held on to those relationships as long as humanly possible (I was always the one who was dumped), yet there are absolutely no residual feelings at all for the women themselves. I have to conclude that I was never in love with any of them as much as I loved having the relationships at the time.
LoveandSuch Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Hi, honestly it sounds like a complete line, a line of BS. Actions not words. Many men know exactly what to say to bait and reel in potential conquests. I cannot count the number of times I have heard the you are specials and the you are differents. Women do this too. I cannot count the number of sluts (please excuse the term), that have reeled in men using the I am so innocent, I have never done this before, lets wait to have sex because I am not that type. I am always surprised with the men who fall for these lines considering the women they are dealing with. It all comes down to, "yeah right." wink
Hazel_eyes Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) I find a lot of these comments baseless and slightly amusing. Well I can tell you from the perspective of someone who was exactly like this. I had a lot of older girls who were role models growing up, who would get in a relationship with any guy for the heck of it. They got in all sorts of heartache and ultimately, unfortunately married losers. This is not to say that all people that do this marry losers I am someone that tends to react more with logic then emotion. I even took that approach to dating. You only marry who you date, right? I wasn't going to risk heartache and other potential problems on a guy who I knew wasn't the kind of guy I would want to marry. I got asked out a lot, I am a very attractive, witty, and fun kinda girl! I would go on lots of dates, but being on a date isn't the same as a relationship. I also like to try to get to know a guy quite a bit before I dived into a relationship, so it is not like I was judging them off of one meeting and saying nope (although some it was obvious after one meeting lol). However I knew what kind of guy I wanted to marry (no, I did not have any physical requirements of him ) I just turns out that it wasn't until I was 19 that I found a guy that I truly wanted to date, and yes we are now married. I never dated anyone but him. He is the only guy I have ever been in love with, and even though it might not be for everyone, I am honestly glad that it is this way. Call me picky, call me overly practical, call me whatever you want. My sister took a different approach and couldn't live without a boyfriend. I had a much more fun, heartbreak free time then she did. Her highschool and college years were filled with boy drama and boyfriends taking all her time. My high school years were full of dates, harmless flirting, carefree fun with friends and college years filled with finding out how amazing my now husband really is lol. And fyi to the poster that mentioned it it is ABSURD to think that just because someone chooses not to be a casual dater but takes a more serious approach to it doesn't mean that they are too ugly or whatever to get a date, how immature to think that. Edited July 31, 2011 by Hazel_eyes
Author torn_curtain Posted July 31, 2011 Author Posted July 31, 2011 To the title: My high school sweetheart, but we grew up together and started dating when he was 16. But that's not really what you're talking about. I don't know at what age it's "normal" to have been in love, but I am skeptical of those who had LTRs but claim never to have been in love. Either they treat "in love" as some sort of mythical thing, they don't invest enough in their LTRs, or they re-write history after the fact and are the kind of people who say, "I thought I was in love at the time." (If you thought you were in love, you were in love! I'm going with Adama from BG on this: "That's all love is; thoughts.") None of these are appealing to me. If the guy has never had a LTR, it really depends on age, your experience, and what you're looking for. Though people who claim to be ridiculously picky are usually emotionally unavailable in some way. That said, emotional unavailability isn't something you are forever---it ebbs and flows and sometimes dissipates. At any rate, I'd be skeptical of the dynamic you describe, no matter what the case or reasoning is. And not just because at this stage in my life, I prefer men who have loved and been loved and understand what a loving relationship is. But because it sounds like an overly romantic idea, which means it's either a lie or you're dealing with someone fairly emotionally flighty. It's exactly those types that make some folks feel most "special" though, so I could see why he'd be sought after. The severity of how bad an offender he is would be in comparison to his youth (for instance, that attitude is entirely fine if he's under 20 and really bull**** if he's over 30, and varying degrees of appropriateness in between). He's 25.....
Author torn_curtain Posted July 31, 2011 Author Posted July 31, 2011 I don't know at what age it's "normal" to have been in love, but I am skeptical of those who had LTRs but claim never to have been in love. Either they treat "in love" as some sort of mythical thing, they don't invest enough in their LTRs, or they re-write history after the fact and are the kind of people who say, "I thought I was in love at the time." (If you thought you were in love, you were in love! I'm going with Adama from BG on this: "That's all love is; thoughts.") None of these are appealing to me. I agree and disagree with you on this point. I am one of those people who thought I was in love with a couple of LTR boyfriends and later realized I wasn't. The truth is that when I was with these partners I was constantly doubting whether I actually loved them but I tried to shut out those thoughts and convince myself that I was. I think it would be different if I was totally convinced I loved them and then later rewrote history. Like you I get uneasy when people say they thought they were in love but weren't in retrospect but it's because I usually assume they didn't have many doubts at the time. If the guy has never had a LTR, it really depends on age, your experience, and what you're looking for. Though people who claim to be ridiculously picky are usually emotionally unavailable in some way. That said, emotional unavailability isn't something you are forever---it ebbs and flows and sometimes dissipates. At any rate, I'd be skeptical of the dynamic you describe, no matter what the case or reasoning is. And not just because at this stage in my life, I prefer men who have loved and been loved and understand what a loving relationship is. But because it sounds like an overly romantic idea, which means it's either a lie or you're dealing with someone fairly emotionally flighty. It's exactly those types that make some folks feel most "special" though, so I could see why he'd be sought after. The severity of how bad an offender he is would be in comparison to his youth (for instance, that attitude is entirely fine if he's under 20 and really bull**** if he's over 30, and varying degrees of appropriateness in between). My preference is for men who have loved and been in love, but I am trying to be open minded and I think it may be possible for somebody to be emotionally unavailable to many people but not all.
zengirl Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I agree and disagree with you on this point. I am one of those people who thought I was in love with a couple of LTR boyfriends and later realized I wasn't. The truth is that when I was with these partners I was constantly doubting whether I actually loved them but I tried to shut out those thoughts and convince myself that I was. I think it would be different if I was totally convinced I loved them and then later rewrote history. Then you're either someone who doesn't know your own feelings or someone who sees love as a mythical thing, like it's some crazy lightning thing that has to overwhelm you and is rare. To me, love is a simple thing, and I always know my own feelings (maybe not in the exact moment but relatively quickly). So people who experience what you described above are either still maturing (it's natural in youth, I think, and everyone's youth ends at different times---mine ended quite early is all) or emotionally untrustworthy. Either way, I wouldn't see them as a good partner. But I may be at a different life stage than you are. I disagree -- when you really struggle to attract potential partners, it's easy to think that you may be in love with your partner when you are actually in love with having an intimate relationship . . . period. And this is something that is difficult to identify except in retrospect. Just from my experience, looking back at my few exes and my relationships with them -- I held on to those relationships as long as humanly possible (I was always the one who was dumped), yet there are absolutely no residual feelings at all for the women themselves. I have to conclude that I was never in love with any of them as much as I loved having the relationships at the time. Right, you're exactly the kind of person I'd stay away from and was warning about in my post.
Author torn_curtain Posted July 31, 2011 Author Posted July 31, 2011 Then you're either someone who doesn't know your own feelings or someone who sees love as a mythical thing, like it's some crazy lightning thing that has to overwhelm you and is rare. To me, love is a simple thing, and I always know my own feelings (maybe not in the exact moment but relatively quickly). So people who experience what you described above are either still maturing (it's natural in youth, I think, and everyone's youth ends at different times---mine ended quite early is all) or emotionally untrustworthy. Either way, I wouldn't see them as a good partner. But I may be at a different life stage than you are. I think you're oversimplifying. People and their emotions are extremely complex. I'm not convinced it's always a difference in maturity so much as emotional make up. Maturity does play some role--I was young then and now if I had those persistence doubts about whether I was in love I'd break off a relationship rather than dragging it out. Love also means different things to different people and nobody experiences it exactly the same. I think there are varying degrees of love. I don't believe in mythical love but I think if you really love somebody you shouldn't be constantly doubting your feelings. In retrospect I had some degree of caring for those boyfriends but it wasn't solid enough to classify as the kind of love that a relationship needs to thrive.
Hazel_eyes Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I want to apologize, I had only skimmed because I was in a hurry over the post that mentioned attracting partners. You were talking about something completely different, about thinking you are in love with someone while dating them. I had thought you were judging them by number of people they've dated. That was my fault completely for not reading what you wrote. I am sincerely sorry
somedude81 Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I'm 29 and I've never been in love with anybody. Sure I've been infatuated with many girls but I've never loved any of them. Now if you're talking about never fallen for anybody all. The girl I'm currently after is like that. She's never been interested in anybody. I'm hoping to be her first, but odds are it won't happen. At 21, if she hasn't fallen for anybody by now, it will probably never happen.
zengirl Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 I think you're oversimplifying. People and their emotions are extremely complex. I'm not convinced it's always a difference in maturity so much as emotional make up. Maturity does play some role--I was young then and now if I had those persistence doubts about whether I was in love I'd break off a relationship rather than dragging it out. Love also means different things to different people and nobody experiences it exactly the same. I think there are varying degrees of love. I don't believe in mythical love but I think if you really love somebody you shouldn't be constantly doubting your feelings. In retrospect I had some degree of caring for those boyfriends but it wasn't solid enough to classify as the kind of love that a relationship needs to thrive. Yeah, that's what I mean by a mythical idea of love. As though it drives the relationship on its own. Love is a verb after all; to me, it is simply a choice you make to care about someone romantically, bot sexually and as a person as a whole. I wouldn't emotionally trust anyone with a mindset like yours. But, again, as I've said many times: I'm not a romantic and I have a low tolerance for what I consider overly romantic ideas. I think: Love is a choice. Now, rationally, loving someone should be based on a solid idea of who they are and how you're compatible with them -- compatibility is necessary for a relationship to thrive; love is something you choose to bring into it, though it will only ignite if there is enough chemistry and compatibility. But the idea of 'degrees of love' is preposterous to me. It goes to the idea that it's only love if it works out or is totally intense or something, and it goes to people re-writing history. Which they are prone to do. You can say I'm oversimplifying things if you like. From my perspective, you're over-complicating things. And I've found that most people who over-complicate love tend to either not know their own emotions well, be emotionally distant or unavailable, or have a touch of commitment phobia. No thanks to any of those. I'm 29 and I've never been in love with anybody. Sure I've been infatuated with many girls but I've never loved any of them. Now if you're talking about never fallen for anybody all. The girl I'm currently after is like that. She's never been interested in anybody. I'm hoping to be her first, but odds are it won't happen. At 21, if she hasn't fallen for anybody by now, it will probably never happen. But you've never been in a relationship, right? That's a totally different thing. You haven't had the chance to fall in love with those girls because they didn't reciprocate.
Author torn_curtain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) Yeah, that's what I mean by a mythical idea of love. As though it drives the relationship on its own. Love is a verb after all; to me, it is simply a choice you make to care about someone romantically, bot sexually and as a person as a whole. I wouldn't emotionally trust anyone with a mindset like yours. But, again, as I've said many times: I'm not a romantic and I have a low tolerance for what I consider overly romantic ideas. I think: Love is a choice. Now, rationally, loving someone should be based on a solid idea of who they are and how you're compatible with them -- compatibility is necessary for a relationship to thrive; love is something you choose to bring into it, though it will only ignite if there is enough chemistry and compatibility. But the idea of 'degrees of love' is preposterous to me. It goes to the idea that it's only love if it works out or is totally intense or something, and it goes to people re-writing history. Which they are prone to do. You can say I'm oversimplifying things if you like. From my perspective, you're over-complicating things. And I've found that most people who over-complicate love tend to either not know their own emotions well, be emotionally distant or unavailable, or have a touch of commitment phobia. No thanks to any of those. Hmm. I think my viewpoint on love is actually more rational and less romantic than yours. There are different types of love, which is why the word feels inadequate to me in clumping them all together. It's not an either or switch. I think of it more as a flowing river that either continually evolves or dries out. What you feel for somebody after a month or two together is a different sort of love than you feel after thirty years together. You can also love somebody in a platonic way but not be in love with them. You can more than like somebody but not love them. Emotions are complex. It is hard for me to relate to people who claim that emotions are black and white--it seems like an inhuman point of view and I question their sincerity. I don't believe only the most intense sort of love "counts"--that's not what I was saying. Nor do I need constant butterflies or whatever to feel sure of my feelings but if I'm constantly doubting whether I even want to be with this person then I don't consider that love. Edited August 1, 2011 by torn_curtain
zengirl Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Hmm. I think my viewpoint on love is actually more rational and less romantic than yours. There are different types of love, which is why the word feels inadequate to me in clumping them all together. It's not an either or switch. I think of it more as a flowing river that either continually evolves or dries out. What you feel for somebody after a month or two together is a different sort of love than you feel after thirty years together. You can also love somebody in a platonic way but not be in love with them. You can more than like somebody but not love them. Emotions are complex. It is hard for me to relate to people who claim that emotions are black and white--it seems like an inhuman point of view and I question their sincerity. I don't believe only the most intense sort of love "counts"--that's not what I was saying. Nor do I need constant butterflies or whatever to feel sure of my feelings but if I'm constantly doubting whether I even want to be with this person then I don't consider that love. Well, of course that's not love (or compatibility) but I think there's definitely a bad pattern if you are saying or thinking you love that person is my point. Or staying with them a long time. I understand people sometimes do that when they're maturing or going through ****, but I wouldn't want to date anyone who wasn't well past that point. YMMV, of course. The whole "I love you but I'm not in love with you" is a bit lame in most relationships. If you love someone AND have sex with them, you don't love them in a platonic way since you have no platonic dynamic; the whole dynamic is skewed by sex and nothing can be platonic and involve sex. I don't know that I view it as black/white perse, but I do believe in owning your feelings. And love is perhaps the most simple of feelings. The computer that played Jeopardy last winter (I forget his name) when asked what love was, came up with kissing + liking + happy, and I think that's a fine definition. But the basic definition (the first one) of "a passionate tender affection" works as well. How on Earth does that sound complex? Of course, I'm not saying feelings don't evolve. Of course they do. And since love is a verb, and therefore a choice, and since feelings are altogether lacking in permanence in general, you can certainly feel differently at different times. But what I despise is people re-writing what they've felt previously based on what they feel in the moment. Saying, "I realized I wasn't really in love back then," suggests that you can't be trusted to identify your feelings---or at best, couldn't be trusted back then, but in order to put it in the past tense, I'd have to see some reasoning for why your ability to identify feelings had evolved. Otherwise, what's the point: you're just going to re-write your feelings again.
Author torn_curtain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) Well, of course that's not love (or compatibility) but I think there's definitely a bad pattern if you are saying or thinking you love that person is my point. Or staying with them a long time. I understand people sometimes do that when they're maturing or going through ****, but I wouldn't want to date anyone who wasn't well past that point. YMMV, of course. Well it was with two boyfriends I had when I was much younger. I wouldn't make that mistake today. These are common behaviors for young inexperienced people. The whole "I love you but I'm not in love with you" is a bit lame in most relationships. If you love someone AND have sex with them, you don't love them in a platonic way since you have no platonic dynamic; the whole dynamic is skewed by sex and nothing can be platonic and involve sex. I disagree with this. I have cared about people and felt (at least somewhat) physically attracted to them but not been in love with them. This was the case with those exes I mentioned. Maybe you are wired differently but for me it's possible to "love" somebody in more of a familial way and be attracted to them and yet not love them in a romantic sense. To reiterate I'm not talking about butterflies as being necessary for romantic love. Usually in these cases, though, the physical attraction while present isn't that strong. Other languages have words to separate different kinds of love and this is one case where the English language seems lacking to me. But what I despise is people re-writing what they've felt previously based on what they feel in the moment. Saying, "I realized I wasn't really in love back then," suggests that you can't be trusted to identify your feelings---or at best, couldn't be trusted back then, but in order to put it in the past tense, I'd have to see some reasoning for why your ability to identify feelings had evolved. Otherwise, what's the point: you're just going to re-write your feelings again. Or maybe they remember their feelings correctly but realize they mistakenly identified what they felt as love because they wanted to believe it at the time--a form of denial. This was the case for me. Edited August 1, 2011 by torn_curtain
zengirl Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Well it was with two boyfriends I had when I was much younger. I wouldn't make that mistake today. These are common behaviors for young inexperienced people. Sure. I think I actually said that. I disagree with this. I have cared about people and felt (at least somewhat) physically attracted to them but not been in love with them. Of course. So, it wasn't love---or a passionate, tender affection. I've cared about people and been attracted to them and not fallen in love with them as well. I'm not saying everyone you care about is someone you love. Compassion is a type of caring, and you can have compassion for an almost total stranger. "Caring" is a totally different word. Someone who needs degrees of love seems like someone who hasn't decided what love actually means. Maybe you are wired differently but for me it's possible to "love" somebody in more of a familial way and be attracted to them and yet not love them in a romantic sense. To reiterate I'm not talking about butterflies as being necessary for romantic love. Usually in these cases, though, the physical attraction while present isn't that strong. Other languages have words to separate different kinds of love and this is one case where the English language seems lacking to me. Well, it's pretty weird to say you love someone like a brother if you're sleeping with him. And it's DEFINITELY not platonic love, as you said before. The word platonic has a distinct meaning. I'm definitely not wired to love someone like a brother and sleep with them. That sounds kinda of gross to me. Or maybe they remember their feelings correctly but realize they mistakenly identified what they felt as love because they wanted to believe it at the time--a form of denial. This was the case for me. Right. Unless I saw strong evidence that it would never happen again, that tells me that person has a tendency towards denial in relationships----one of the most dangerous habits for someone you'd enter into any kind of emotional intimacy with. No thanks.
Recommended Posts