Star Gazer Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 Because I was "expecting too much" when "expecting too much" really meant not completely standing me up. The rest were all legitimate reasons. (At least the reasons given.)
alphamale Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 Talk for yourself, thank you very much. well!! I never...
snug.bunny Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 I've never had a boyfriend break up with me. But I have had guys I was dating, not wanting a relationship with me. The reasons ranged from disliking my personality to not being attracted to me physically. I wouldn't classify those as a "dumb" reason, but rather not compatible with one another.
torn_curtain Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 If someone doesn't want to stay with you because you don't want to get married or have children, then they're not with you for YOU in my opinion. Suppose a woman would say to me "I'll leave you if you don't want to have children", then she would be with me because she sees me as a sperm donor, not because she wants to be with ME. The same goes for marriage, which is a legal status. If a woman is so focused on getting that legal status/document and threatens to leave if she doesn't get it, then again, that in my opinion demonstrates she's not with me for ME. If I'm truly head over heels in love with a woman, then things like marriage and children aren't decisive factors in my decision to stay with her or not. I would stay either way, because I'd be with her for HER. Because it is HER that makes me happy and not any other secondary reason/factor. I think this is BS. I want to get married to someone I love. It's not that I place marriage at all above the person I marry--I even went through a period where I thought about never marrying. Just marriage is important to me, and I couldn't stay with someone who was against marriage no how crazy I was about them. Of course those aren't decisive factors for you because you have no interest in marriage. Try to see it from the perspective of somebody who does.
torn_curtain Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 I want to be with a woman for her and I want to find someone that wants to be with me for me. It's possible to want to be with someone for who they are and also for whether their life goals and values (like views on marriage and kids) are compatible with yours. Both are necessary and it's naive to think that life goals and values shouldn't be factored in.
torn_curtain Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 I agree with that too, but marriage and children shouldn't be the primary and sole reason for two people to be together in my opinion. In my opinion that's the wrong way to go about things. My point is what it implies when someone says "when you don't give me children, then I'm going to get them from someone else, with or without you" and "if you won't marry me I'll marry another, I get what I want either way, with or without you". It demonstrates that that person is not with you for YOU. That's my point. You're viewing this in a simplistic, black and white way. It's not like women have to choose between someone they value as a person and an empty sperm donor/stock husband. If they leave you because you don't want marriage or kids it's probably so they can find someone they love just as much as you who also shares their values.
Nexus One Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 I think this is BS. I want to get married to someone I love. It's not that I place marriage at all above the person I marry--I even went through a period where I thought about never marrying. Just marriage is important to me, and I couldn't stay with someone who was against marriage no how crazy I was about them. Of course those aren't decisive factors for you because you have no interest in marriage. Try to see it from the perspective of somebody who does. I didn't say I don't have interest in marriage, however I don't think I want a partner that lets a legal status/document be the decisive factor whether she wants to be with me or not. My point is that I don't put my primary focus on the legal status and neither would I like my SO to do that. For me it's about her and I hope to find someone that wants to be with me for me and wouldn't just end the relationship over the lack of a legal document. That principle is my point. Letting secondary reasons like that determine whether you want to be with someone or not is not a solid basis for a relationship in my opinion. It's possible to want to be with someone for who they are and also for whether their life goals and values (like views on marriage and kids) are compatible with yours. Both are necessary and it's naive to think that life goals and values shouldn't be factored in. I'm not saying those factors shouldn't be factored in, however I wouldn't like to hear such an ultimatum 3 years into the relationship. Several dates in at the very most. You're viewing this in a simplistic, black and white way. It's not like women have to choose between someone they value as a person and an empty sperm donor/stock husband. If they leave you because you don't want marriage or kids it's probably so they can find someone they love just as much as you who also shares their values. And that's perfectly fine, from their point of view, but then I'd appreciate it if they told me very early on. Like I said, something like several dates in. I just think that I don't want to be with someone who has their priorities reversed. Don't get me wrong, I see marriage and kids as an option, so for me it's not a decisive factor. I put my primary focus on her. I just hope to find someone who has their priorities in similar order. Like I said, having the order of priorities reversed just doesn't sit well with me, because of what it implies, because of the principle and because it doesn't seem like a good basis for a relationship to me.
Nexus One Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 (edited) Did you ever consider, that wanting to marry and/or build a family, is a beautiful expression of love? Maybe a woman could love you so much, she wants to try to be with you forever and bear children that have some of your traits. Yes I considered that, but that's not my point. I see marriage and children as an option, I just don't wan't an SO that would end the relationship if I said no, because of what that implies. For a large part this comes down to loyalty. Edited August 5, 2011 by Nexus One
Mrlonelyone Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 The thing is Nexus, women are time limited when it comes to having kids. They can't sit about and wait for you to be ready. There are two kinds of women who will not end it if you said no to kids. 1.)Yong, late teens and early 20's women who think they have forever before menopause. 2.)Women who are already sterile for whatever reason (uterine or ovarian cancer, hysterectomy, intersexed, or post op transsexual). 1. may be unappealing for being immature, 2. may be unappealing to you for a number of reasons. It's a law of nature that a healthy intact woman who can have babies will want to have babies before menopause.
Nexus One Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 The thing is Nexus, women are time limited when it comes to having kids. They can't sit about and wait for you to be ready. But that's irrelevant to my point. According to a 40 year long study, only 1 in 10 people on this earth will in their lifetime experience true life lasting love. 1 in bloody 10, that's a mere 10% even though 97% of people will have been married at least once by the time they die. I want the real thing. I don't want to give up a solid principle that is at the basis of such love, i.e. being together because you want to BE with each other. And that more than anything else. That's where we get at the core of it.
alphamale Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 1.)Yong, late teens and early 20's women who think they have forever before menopause. 2.)Women who are already sterile for whatever reason (uterine or ovarian cancer, hysterectomy, intersexed, or post op transsexual). you forgot #3 - psycho chicks
Recommended Posts