Should I feel insecure over this?

[zengirl]

I'm glad you had a better experience with living with someone and not having them change drastically on you though.

 

Ironically, the man I lived with did change, but not until we'd lived together about a year. People do change. He was still a good man, don't get me wrong, but I was disappointed in him ultimately.

 

Your experience sounds like a bummer. I've had experiences --- nothing that extreme --- where a partner changed, of course, and I've had experiences where I changed. I won't make any guesses as to your relationship --- you know it better than I do --- but I don't think every time someone changes, it means the past was all lies (totally not judging your individual case). When I was young, I was in a constant state of flux. I would say I am not as likely to change today, but I was still finding who I was until a couple of years ago, so I'm sure my exes would say I changed in the relationships too. I don't consider that the same as not showing my true self---the self isn't set in stone.

 

That said, not the same at all as your story, where the guy just acted like an asshat. (No offense intended.) I've never had an experience like that, really. The only ******* I ever dated was the guy who changed the least---he was a jerk the whole time, and I went in with open eyes on that one.

 

Ah, I didn't make love with my current boyfriend until I told him I loved him. I guess I learned to not share myself so easily, too. But I suppose if one is living so intimately with someone for month after month as lovers and companions (and it's not just dating) then perhaps there could be cause of some concern if it's never mentioned... I suppose, at least, even if the love is real, the person may not be secure in it / be confused about the essence of it / not know what they want.

 

Well, if the relationship is very casual (by which I don't mean anything bad just --- there is less intensity, contact, partnership, etc) for a long time, I understand not being in love.

[AmEricanWomann]

Yes OP, It does seem like his reasons for about were about what you do, rather than who you are.

 

What if he had said you're beautiful? I've had guys who said they love me for some facet of my looks. Its flattering at first, especially considering I was so overweight and yet ironically practically invisible to men a few years ago. But after the ego boost wears off, there is something quite unfulfilling about being liked only for one's appearance.

 

What answer could he have given you that would have satisfied you?

[SincereOnlineGuy]

He said that I didn't ride his ass about things, had a full time job, had my own place, I'm grounded, don't do drugs and heavily drink and that he can trust me and that I'm a good person.

 

I feel like all of those things above were for the most part, external things, I didn't feel all that special. (keep in mind, we haven't told each other we love each other bc I know he had been in a 8 year relationship before us and ended badly so we're taking it slow) How would you guys feel? Would you take that as compliments and not expect anything else? It felt a bit unromantic.

 

 

 

Oh god, don't you ever stop and get the feeling that you should accept and not make a big deal out of something that doesn't warrant 'big deal' status?

 

He could have added: "you like (him) back"... as well, but I'm guessing you'd have wanted some magical potion of words that would somehow sound more romantic too.

 

When I finish this note, the next thread I'll read is called " 'soulmate' is a stupid term".

 

Those who believe in "soulmates" are the ones who want all of the dream-filled responses which seem to be missing from your last night's experience. Those who are more sensible and more practical know that there simply isn't anything more important in a mate that that she's trustworthy.

 

The best thing your boyfriend gains from you is the security in his own mind that he can almost always anticipate you with accuracy. Your job and your responsibility in this world are totally admirable, and it is the lack of substance abuses that keep you predictable and grounded.

 

If I had to venture a guess... somebody in his past tended to "ride his ass about things" to excess, and that is from where that thought originated.

 

And let me venture another guess: YOU are about the last person to give yourself full credit for your various accomplishments in life??

 

PART of the reason you don't get enough from the answers to the random question from last night, is that you aren't used to giving yourSELF enough credit for things which have always seemed 'normal' or 'expected' of you, even though to achieve them was no small accomplishment.

 

Life doesn't get any better for a "real" person than when another "real" person begins to trust them and then builds on that trust continuously during the throes of a long romantic relationship.

 

You are already where you want to be... now just realize it !

[sm1tten]

What I hate is the notion that someone is or isn't emotionally unavailable, as a person; some FEW people are, but usually it's situational

I think a lot of people conflate the two, and that bothers me. I'm not necessarily saying it's happening here in this thread, but just as a general term it's started to lose some of it's meaning for me.

 

I don't know if her guy is emotionally unavailable or not. I do think they are emotionally incompatible. I wonder if the OP is projecting how much she wants/needs him to say "I love you" to her, because I can see how some people would be wary of that.

 

However, she also said that he told her that he was afraid he'd never be able to love someone as much as he had in the past - which does to me indicate some emotional unavailability or at least distancing - but then she says he treats her as though she is special and cared for. My experience (so take with a grain of salt) wasn't like that at all.

 

But we don't actually know how he feels about her. Maybe the things he listed that he liked about her weren't particularly deep from our viewpoint, but maybe the are things that are important to him. Maybe he's not romantic. Maybe he's not very expressive. All sorts of maybes. I haven't gotten anything from her threads that made me feel like it was clear how he felt about her but it's pretty obvious that she's disappointed with him.

[zengirl]

I don't know if her guy is emotionally unavailable or not. I do think they are emotionally incompatible.

 

Well, the two are one in the same to a degree. Emotionally unavailability can also be situational to the person too. But I don't know if either is the case. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving it more time. If there are still issues with the ex, and a need to take it slow over them, I'd be a bit wary is all.

 

However, she also said that he told her that he was afraid he'd never be able to love someone as much as he had in the past - which does to me indicate some emotional unavailability or at least distancing

 

Yeah, that's more what I thought was EU and the phrasing and other issues and such than the delayed ILY. Don't get me wrong: a delayed ILY isn't always a big thing IMO.

 

- but then she says he treats her as though she is special and cared for. My experience (so take with a grain of salt) wasn't like that at all.

 

Treating someone well is not a sign of emotional availability. It is a sign of relationship capability, which is a different thing. I was a lovely relationship partner during the later times I was UE (my exes will tell you so), but it didn't make me any better at emotional intimacy or anymore willing to truly commit. Treating someone well is important, of course, but it's more a sign of character (and affection, of course; you don't stick around if you don't dig the person, regardless, but is that really enough?) than intimacy.

 

But we don't actually know how he feels about her.

 

Totally and completely true! I was just pointing out some of the deeper issues she brought up for her to examine, and then talking about ILY in a theoretical sense. I am not saying this is a bad match. I really think there's not enough data to say.

 

Maybe the things he listed that he liked about her weren't particularly deep from our viewpoint, but maybe the are things that are important to him. Maybe he's not romantic. Maybe he's not very expressive. All sorts of maybes. I haven't gotten anything from her threads that made me feel like it was clear how he felt about her but it's pretty obvious that she's disappointed with him.

 

I agree with all of this, and I do think the 5 Things Test was just doomed for failure all around. These tests usually are.

[thatone]

Last night I asked my bf of 8 months what 5 things he liked about me. It was completely random, but it was an honest question. He looked uncomfortable and wondered why I put him on the spot and that I'm asking him to know if I should jump sail or not by how he answers. I told him that I don't doubt that he likes bc he wouldn't be with me, but was curious as to what he liked about me. He said that I didn't ride his ass about things, had a full time job, had my own place, I'm grounded, don't do drugs and heavily drink and that he can trust me and that I'm a good person.

 

I feel like all of those things above were for the most part, external things, I didn't feel all that special. (keep in mind, we haven't told each other we love each other bc I know he had been in a 8 year relationship before us and ended badly so we're taking it slow) How would you guys feel? Would you take that as compliments and not expect anything else? It felt a bit unromantic.

 

so how is it when it's something that you also haven't done it's "we".

 

and when there's something he hasn't done that you want him to do it's "he".

 

i suspect you haven't given him a reason to think more of you other than those external factors.

[sm1tten]

See, I don't think emotional incompatibility and emotional unavailability are the same thing at all. I don't think her boyfriend's potential inability to fulfill her emotional needs mean that he's unavailable; moreso that her needs/wants and his capacity/preferences (?) are different. In my head this is much more distinct than my phrasing, but what I'm trying to say is that, for example, if she likes to hug a lot and he doesn't really like to hug, it doesn't always equal that he is not an affectionate person - because maybe he likes to hold hands.

 

I don't think treating someone well is a sign of emotional availability either, but treating someone as though they are special, to me, is vastly different than mere affection, tolerance, or like. In order to make someone feel special, I'd think you'd have to have an understanding of who they are and what would make them feel special and that would require intimacy. Being special means that you are in some sense above others. If you're emotionally unavailable I guess you can have the capacity to pretend, though, and the more invested person probably projects meaning onto the other's actions as well.

 

Hm, hm.

 

I'm probably putting too much/not enough thought into this. I guess that I have started to see "emotional unavailable" as the new "why isn't the world fair" "women are all gold diggers" "men are all users" because it suggests that there is something wrong with the person who isn't giving you what you want or need. When it may just be a fundamental incompatibility.

[zengirl]

See, I don't think emotional incompatibility and emotional unavailability are the same thing at all. I don't think her boyfriend's potential inability to fulfill her emotional needs mean that he's unavailable; moreso that her needs/wants and his capacity/preferences (?) are different. In my head this is much more distinct than my phrasing, but what I'm trying to say is that, for example, if she likes to hug a lot and he doesn't really like to hug, it doesn't always equal that he is not an affectionate person - because maybe he likes to hold hands.

 

Okay, I see what you're saying. I was thinking more in degrees i.e. She wants emotional intimacy, but he doesn't want as much. You're saying he wants it, but in different ways. No, that wouldn't be EU to me. From her posts total, I question whether he wants emotional intimacy at all. I'm not sure he doesn't, but it'd be something I wondered.

 

I don't think treating someone well is a sign of emotional availability either, but treating someone as though they are special, to me, is vastly different than mere affection, tolerance, or like.

 

I treat many people as though they are special to me who I'd never be emotionally intimate. And I treated partners that way when I was EU. Depends on the way they are special. They were special and important to my life, but they weren't getting all the way in.

 

In order to make someone feel special, I'd think you'd have to have an understanding of who they are and what would make them feel special and that would require intimacy. Being special means that you are in some sense above others. If you're emotionally unavailable I guess you can have the capacity to pretend, though, and the more invested person probably projects meaning onto the other's actions as well.

 

I don't think it has to be pretend. As I said, someone can be special without getting really in. Knowing each other is part of intimacy, yes, but it doesn't totally fulfill it, and the knowing of the other person relies on THEIR being open to intimacy, not you IMO. It's probably a matter of degrees. If you're wildly and completely emotionally unavailable, it's likely hard to treat someone special, but not if you're just somewhat emotionally unavailable. It's likely a spectrum, I think.

 

I'm probably putting too much/not enough thought into this. I guess that I have started to see "emotional unavailable" as the new "why isn't the world fair" "women are all gold diggers" "men are all users" because it suggests that there is something wrong with the person who isn't giving you what you want or need. When it may just be a fundamental incompatibility.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone just because they're emotionally unavailable (maybe wrong with them as a partner, especially depending on the reason why they're EU and the degree to which they are), unless they are pairing that with bad behavior like lying, stringing someone along, etc. So, I don't mean that someone is a bad person for being EU. In fact, there's no human being on earth who hasn't been EU at times and few who won't be EU, at least situationally and briefly, during a relationship. To me, it just means not being in a place where intimacy can happen, no matter the person involved.

[torn_curtain]

I don't know anything else about your relationship but this would bother me. Whenever a guy isn't able to be specific about why he likes me and just says something vague like "you're awesome" or gives dry reasons like he gave you, I get concerned that we don't have a very special connection. That he hasn't told you he loves you is another red flag. I wouldn't stay with a guy who hadn't told me he loved me after 8 months together. That's a long time. In my experience whenever a guy is really into a girl, he'll tell her he loves her after about a couple of months. Men tend to fall in love faster than women.

[thatone]

 

I'm probably putting too much/not enough thought into this. I guess that I have started to see "emotional unavailable" as the new "why isn't the world fair" "women are all gold diggers" "men are all users" because it suggests that there is something wrong with the person who isn't giving you what you want or need. When it may just be a fundamental incompatibility.

 

indeed.

 

unavailable, as if the person wasn't home and missed a call or something. a term specifically meant to deflect responsibility. there's no responsibility to tell someone that you're just keeping them around so that someone calls you or someone gives you blowjobs, you're "unavailable!" so it isn't your fault.