Leigh 87 Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 A point that seams to come up a lot on here, is " a guy is happy enough with a women, but not happy enough to marry them" Essentially, a lot of guys, especially, seam to enjoy being with a women a lot, but they are not self aware enough to KNOW, that they are not madly in love with them, do not want a future with them, and are simply enjoying themselves somewhat, enough to want to be around them and care deaply enough to call it " love"...... I noticed more guys do it than girls, based on this website, which prob does not translate into real life of course:) QUESTIONS: - Guys. The guys who read this, if you have EVEr been in the above scenario, can YOU PLZ give some insight as to: - WHY you stayed with the girl for a long time, if you did, without knowing that it was not going anywhere special, long term? - When did it strike you, at what point did you realise that u did enjoy being around the girl, but that is all it was; not " the one" for you, who your totally insanely in love with.
Author Leigh 87 Posted March 6, 2012 Author Posted March 6, 2012 Come on, I really want to know if guys/girls simply to not have consideration for the other persons feelings. In theory, if a guy is not that into a girl after a year, not enough to get super serious, surely they would consider - if the women feels the same - if the women is not the one for them, shouldn't they have a talk, and discuss if this is the sort of relationship that is desired by both parties? Some men are happy enough, but not madly in love; some guys are ignorant and inexperiencdes, while others know full well they are simply gaving fun, andf not going to marry the girl. In the former, I understand, the guy simply is " waiting" for the true love to happen, after spending time with a person they have come to care about. ANd enjoy being around. For the latter, of course a guy should TELL the girl, if the guy is KNOWINGLY just enjoying the ride, until they DO find the " one" they want to marry.
xpaperxcutx Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 I think you answered your own question. Some men don't really know what they want. A relationship with a woman provides a sense of security and comfort. After so and so years, they've settled into a routine of being with one person. Yes, they might be stringing that person along, but they themselves don't really bother to think about taking it to the next step due to being " comfortable". Let's just call it laziness. The only person whocan break from this " comfortable" zone is the person being lead on, ie. the woman. If after so and so years, she decides she's sick of waiting around for a guy to pop the question, she has her own two feet that will lead her out the door. Yes it is a irrational decision to just pack up and leave, but nobody forced her to stay in a " marriage-less" position except for her own emotions and dependency on this relationship to go somewhere. Women need to more aware of who they're dating and whether they're wasting away their " eligible" years. If after the two, three year mark, nothing has come to fruition, they should consider bailing. There are men willing to " marry", in fact look at the ones who pop the question in less than half a year. 2
Author Leigh 87 Posted March 6, 2012 Author Posted March 6, 2012 I think you just need to know yourself. Be self aware. Know that, based on your feelings you have for a guy, know where u want to go with them. I love my boyfriend, but we are not quiet ready for marriage. His good mate has been with his g/f for 5 years, and they truly are in love. Or, aren't they, because they are not married? They got together very young, 17 ish, so knows if their relationship is not legit? The length of time it takes for marriage is a diff topic I made, lol. My second career, I am fairly certain, after being a personal trainer, is to be a love and relationship councellor. I find it really interesting, how I know what I want, based on how I feel.. and yet, so many people do not do anything about less than ideal situations... becayse they are not self aware, or they are just the type of people who "settle"? If my relationship is not amazing and we ar enot talking marriage in 2 - 3 years, I know that I would only BE with this guy STILL, if I had developed feelings compelling enough to make me want to spend my life with him.. I KNOW, that after 2 - 3 years, I would not be with my boyfiend, if I did not see him as a person I loved SO madly, that I wanted to spend many years together............ My feelings develop at such a pace. If I did not KNOW by then, and I was simply " comfortable?.... I would ahve figure it would be EASY to tell? Perhaps it is not all that easy to tune into your inner most thoughts. Or, as I said, people are not striving for " great things" in life, in terms of relationships... they just " settle".
Andy_K Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 You pin too much on marriage as the ultimate indicator of progress in a relationship. It isn't. Saying the 'L' word, moving in together, having kids together - those are how relationships move forward, the latter being a far greater commitment than marriage could ever be. You know someone loves you and is committed to you by how much of their future they plan with you, not whether they have proposed yet. Back to your original question. Staying with someone is easy. Breaking up with someone is hard. Finding someone new is hard too. Sometimes guys would rather just keep something they're comfortable with but not 100% about than risk losing everything and causing lots of pain in the process. 2
coffee.girl Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Personally I would put more stock on actions, than words. Is he introducing you to his friends? Is he integrating you into his family? Is he including you in the big decisions in his life? Are both your needs (within reason) being met by the relationship? I think these things (and it's by no means an exhaustive list) are some of the signs that a relationship is mature and committed. In my last serious relationship, my boyfriend was very good at talking about love and commitment, but didn't do anything to show it... so I eventually had to move on. 2
lospantalonsfancie Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) I think I can answer your question. I did what you said myself many years back when I was young and inexperienced. Most men (1) NEED sex and the affection of a woman, and (2) WANT a long term committed relationship with a woman (i.e. marriage). When a man finds a woman who can give him (1), but who is not a good fit (for whatever reason) for (2), the man faces a bind that women do not face or sympathize with as much. He can either: (a) Keep the woman around for (1) while keeping an eye out for another woman who can provide both (1) AND (2), or (b) Let the woman go right away, and face a long winter of many months, or sometimes years if the guy is inexperienced in attracting women, of sexual frustration where (1) is not being met. This can be torture for a man, and therefore men are reluctant to put themselves through it. Since (b) is so horrible, men often go for (a) in the interest of self-preservation. You can say that a man who does (a) is morally wrong, in that he is hurting the woman to protect himself. However, one could also blame our society, which for whatever reason results in much more demand (i.e. need) for sex on the part of men than there is supply on the part of women. Therefore, since men are so desperate to not be tortured by sex-less months and years, they will go for (a) --- i.e. they will choose self-preservation over the well-being of another person, which is a human reaction. Heres a semi-serious, almost troll-ish, solution: If women just gave out more sex, or if prostitution were legalized, then men wouldn't be so desperate so as to resort to such means!! Edited March 6, 2012 by lospantalonsfancie
silvermercy Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) Heres a semi-serious, almost troll-ish, solution: If women just gave out more sex, or if prostitution were legalized, then men wouldn't be so desperate so as to resort to such means!! And if men gave love and commitment more easily, then women would give out sex more easily and the need for prostitutes would also diminish. Because if men "need" sex then women "need" love/commitment. See what I did here? (I'm sorry, I don't get the all/most men "need" sex as it's almost a basic need, presented as almost equivalent to food, shelter and water). Edited March 6, 2012 by silvermercy 2
lospantalonsfancie Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 And if men gave love and commitment more easily, then women would give out sex more easily and the need for prostitutes would also diminish. Because if men "need" sex then women "need" love/commitment. See what I did here? (I'm sorry, I don't get the all/most men "need" sex as it's almost a basic need, presented as almost equivalent to food, shelter and water). This is where you don't get it. Sex for men IS much more of a basic physical need than it is for women. Sure lack of sex, unlike food, will not DIRECTLY kill a man, but its not far off. If denied sex for many months or years, a man will slowly lose the ability to function in the world due to a slow and steady progression of insanity. As to your other point, I would argue that men do give commitment and love as much as women do. The only difference, which creates an illusion that they do not, is that men will frequently have sex with women to whom they do not intend to commit (because of the need dedcribed above), whereas women rarely do the same. This phenomenon creates the illusion that you have that men do not give love and commitment very frequently.
Feelin Frisky Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Of course persons of both genders "settle". You have to live your reality. And if that "one" doesn't seem to be materializing and you're sick of being lonely, lots of folks choose someone "acceptable" to them. Whether they wind up marrying or not is up in the air. Sometimes it's an issue of counting your blessings and not having your ideal.
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Saying the 'L' word, moving in together, having kids together - those are how relationships move forward, the latter being a far greater commitment than marriage could ever be. You know someone loves you and is committed to you by how much of their future they plan with you, not whether they have proposed yet. I TOTALLY disagree with the bolded. Yes, "L" word, moving in and having kids certainly do propel the relationship, but none of them indicate any commitment for the very long haul.. It's very sad to me about the kids part. I know SO many young people around here who are doing the "baby daddy / mama" thing. Some of them later end up getting engaged and marry. Many of them don't. If asked why, they say they aren't ready for marriage! But they were "ready" to have kids. Go figure. There is a young man down the road from me who is in his early 30's and has 5 kids from THREE different women, none of whom he was / is married to. (Off topic, but I want to add that he tries to do the right thing - he lives with his latest "baby mama" and pays child support on all the kids, and I'm sure he doesn't have much leftover. He also has some kind of partial custody because at times all 5 are around here.) I loved, and lived with boyfriends when I was younger, and I had NO thought of being with those guys "forever." I was not ready to make a long term commitment, and they weren't either. Serial monogamy. The second part, though, I do agree with totally. If the future is talked about and both people are consciously walking on the same path, I don't think a proposal or the tradition / legal / religious bond of marriage is a necessary big deal. 1
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 This is where you don't get it. Sex for men IS much more of a basic physical need than it is for women. Sure lack of sex, unlike food, will not DIRECTLY kill a man, but its not far off. If denied sex for many months or years, a man will slowly lose the ability to function in the world due to a slow and steady progression of insanity. The bolded - you're kidding, right? I mean, the guy can always jerk off and avoid going insane, right? I realize that in general, men might "need" sex more than women do, but this does not translate in ANY way to it being a good idea for women to "give out more sex" to accommodate this. What any individual woman or man wants or needs does not mean that some other man or woman should (for the betterment of society? ) do what they do not wish to do at the expense of their own boundaries, desires, wishes or personal integrity. 1
xpaperxcutx Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 You pin too much on marriage as the ultimate indicator of progress in a relationship. It isn't. Saying the 'L' word, moving in together, having kids together - those are how relationships move forward In the traditional sense, marriage is a precursor of a relationship progressing. Somehow, people seem to get it mixed up and pop out babies beforehand. It's not the act of proposing, it's the meanings behind the act and the acknowledgement that one is willing to spend a lifetime with that other person. Otherwise, why the need to pretend you want a soulmate or meetng the "one"?
dasein Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Marriage is a ridiculously slanted contractual arrangement in favor of women generally that involves the state as a social engineer/enforcer. Both genders know this, so it's no wonder women push for marriage so much more than men do and why men generally resist it. It's simple common sense on both sides. Andy K is correct in that the real commitments between a man and woman in life include raising children, sharing and maintaining a household, continuing to choose to love one another. Involving the state in a slanted legal arrangement is only a "one way" indicator of commitment in our current legal regime, obligating the man to everything and the woman to nothing (with very few exceptions, don't bother citing a single exception). Until this changes, the marriage rate will continue to drop like a rock.
joystickd Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 And if men gave love and commitment more easily, then women would give out sex more easily and the need for prostitutes would also diminish. Because if men "need" sex then women "need" love/commitment. See what I did here? (I'm sorry, I don't get the all/most men "need" sex as it's almost a basic need, presented as almost equivalent to food, shelter and water). It is actually included in the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Its actually on the same level of food, water and shelter. Its also on the level of love and belonging.
zengirl Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 I loved, and lived with boyfriends when I was younger, and I had NO thought of being with those guys "forever." I was not ready to make a long term commitment, and they weren't either. Serial monogamy. The second part, though, I do agree with totally. If the future is talked about and both people are consciously walking on the same path, I don't think a proposal or the tradition / legal / religious bond of marriage is a necessary big deal. I would say this is the truth. I don't think there are any real milestones that say, "This relationship is forever," not even marriage, to be honest, though having kids/buying joint property/getting married combined together are probably the trifecta of "It's sufficiently hard to get the heck out of this!" I think marriage is just the conscious expression of a choice to TRY to build forever, for most people. Now some people try harder than others, that's true. I also think it "feels" out of step if one person is not all in and the other does, and I don't think anyone misses that feeling. Some people willfully ignore it, but they do so because they choose to, for whatever reasons they have. I think what often happens is a relationship starts off truly building and then someone (in this OP, the 'man' but I think the woman could do this too---in fact, I've been that woman) realizes they're not all in and they're never going to be all in. It's not necessarily sinister. It's just. . . you love them, but the building stage has gone as far as you can see it going. What do you do? Do you get up and leave right away? Probably not. Maybe a person should, but if you're still in love, there's going to be some confusion and thinking and mulling and so forth in the meantime, especially if it's a comfortable, amicable, mostly good relationship. It's laziness, yes, but it's mostly just. . . not knowing what you DO want to build or with whom or how to move along on your path. We all have those moments of inertia. It's a bummer if we accidentally string anyone (or ourselves) along by being inert, but I don't think most of these relationships emerge because some guy was stringing some girl along. I think he just liked her, built a bit, then didn't feel compelled to go any further but also didn't feel compelled to leave. He got comfortable in a situation that wasn't quite right. C'est la vie, no? 1
zengirl Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 It is actually included in the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Its actually on the same level of food, water and shelter. Its also on the level of love and belonging. True enough---though I don't think the intended idea was that an individual person would die without sex, but rather that it's a biological urge. And not specifically for men. Maslow's hierarchy is gender neutral, FWIW.
lospantalonsfancie Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 The bolded - you're kidding, right? I mean, the guy can always jerk off and avoid going insane, right? [/Quote] I'm not kidding, or even exaggerating. And no, jerking off does not solve the problem. Do you know many guys who can't get laid for prolonged periods of time? Have you seen what happens to them? I think that, more often than not, women underestimate the real human suffering faced by men who can't get laid. I realize that in general, men might "need" sex more than women do, but this does not translate in ANY way to it being a good idea for women to "give out more sex" to accommodate this. What any individual woman or man wants or needs does not mean that some other man or woman should (for the betterment of society? ) do what they do not wish to do at the expense of their own boundaries, desires, wishes or personal integrity. I'm not suggesting that anyone has to do anything. Nevertheless, almost every decision in society carries costs and unintended consequences. All I'm saying is that the complaint of the OP is part of the cost of the current dynamic in the dating market, where women give out less sex than men physically need. It places men in "survival mode", whereby they will resort to unsavory tactics such as prolonging relationships with women without committing, in order to preserve their mind and their body and not be plunged into an abyss of suffering. That being said, I will note that as men grow older and more experienced, and learn to attract women and extract sex reliably, the need for such tactics disappears and these men become what women call "well-adjusted" and "mature."
joystickd Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 True enough---though I don't think the intended idea was that an individual person would die without sex, but rather that it's a biological urge. And not specifically for men. Maslow's hierarchy is gender neutral, FWIW. I know I just mention it was included.
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 In a lot of cases, there is just not future oriented thinking going on at all. The people are getting something out of whatever they have together, and it is what it is. Sometimes it has to do mostly with where the individuals are in their own lives. I'm fine with that. I do think, though, that if a person feels ready to make a lifelong type of commitment, they are probably doing themselves a disservice by participating in a relationship that is not headed in that direction. Sometimes a relationship that is not headed in that direction morphs into marriage, but I think it's rather uncommon. That's where the "laziness" kind of comes into play. One or both are getting whatever needs met - why make it harder and more demanding?
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 is part of the cost of the current dynamic in the dating market, where women give out less sex than men physically need. It places men in "survival mode", whereby they will resort to unsavory tactics such as prolonging relationships with women without committing, in order to preserve their mind and their body and not be plunged into an abyss of suffering. That being said, I will note that as men grow older and more experienced, and learn to attract women and extract sex reliably, the need for such tactics disappears and these men become what women call "well-adjusted" and "mature." The "current dating market" as opposed to what? The recent historical past, where the average people did not have access to sex at all until they married?
joystickd Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Women also do a variation of what this thread is talking about and some do worse. For example a woman can be with someone for years and cheat with another man and have his baby and pass it off for her SO. Is what the thread talking about worse than that? I mean you have a man that is invested emotionally and financially to two people. Think about the feeling he has when he finds out the truth. When scenarios like this come up one must think there are worse scenarios.
joystickd Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 The "current dating market" as opposed to what? The recent historical past, where the average people did not have access to sex at all until they married? The main problem with both genders now it that they are more about themselves now. Its like what can I get out of this relationship. Neither party wants to compromise because its taking away from what they want. If you talk with people that have been married for 50+ years one of the biggest things mentioned is compromise.
lospantalonsfancie Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 I should add that I'm not expressing a preference as to what society or women should do about this kind of thing. I'm just pointing out that, even though the current dynamic has many benefits, one of its costs is that men become desperate and as a result behave badly in order to survive. This is akin to people in poverty who will steal, lie, and cheat to get the next meal; similarly men will pretend to commit, extend relationships disingenuously, etc, out of terror of the alternative (sexual starvation). Its up to women and society, both individually and as a group, to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and what to change if anything. I'm just laying it out without recommending any direction. I'm not kidding, or even exaggerating. And no, jerking off does not solve the problem. Do you know many guys who can't get laid for prolonged periods of time? Have you seen what happens to them? I think that, more often than not, women underestimate the real human suffering faced by men who can't get laid. I'm not suggesting that anyone has to do anything. Nevertheless, almost every decision in society carries costs and unintended consequences. All I'm saying is that the complaint of the OP is part of the cost of the current dynamic in the dating market, where women give out less sex than men physically need. It places men in "survival mode", whereby they will resort to unsavory tactics such as prolonging relationships with women without committing, in order to preserve their mind and their body and not be plunged into an abyss of suffering. That being said, I will note that as men grow older and more experienced, and learn to attract women and extract sex reliably, the need for such tactics disappears and these men become what women call "well-adjusted" and "mature."
lospantalonsfancie Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 The "current dating market" as opposed to what? The recent historical past, where the average people did not have access to sex at all until they married? Back then people married much younger due to societal pressures, and the pairings were arranged by families frequently. As we all know, this was part of the patriarchal society that benefited men and disadvantaged women. The picture today is very different.
Recommended Posts