Why stay, and not be fully invested?

May 7, 2014

Not saying I'm a perfect partner--not by a long-shot--but one thing I can say is that even when I have doubts, I have always been 100% invested in my relationships. If I'm in, I'm really in. If I have problems with something my partner is doing, I communicate this. Not always effectively...but I TRY.

So I have a really, really hard time understanding the mentality of being in a relationship, letting it go on and on for years, and only having a toe in in terms of investment and effort. Why would someone do that; can anyone relate? Especially why would someone do that when their perpetual lack of full investment is causing conflict that in turn causes them discomfort. If people with this mentality stay because of sex, I don't get that, either, because when conflict continues long enough, the sex life is affected.

I think my inability to understand this is PART of why, when I find myself in relationships with partners who only have a toe in, I can't extricate myself. That behavior confuses me--saying "I love you" and showing up at least on the surface, but just checking out when the time comes to actually put some real work into the relationship and then complaining that things aren't going as you want. I just don't get it and if anyone can give any clarity, I'd appreciate it.

May 7, 2014

Seems to me you're getting involved with the wrong types. Some people just are like that, never fully in.

I don't mean this offensively at all but can it be a case of attracting what you exude? I say this because you mention how committed you are as a partner but somehow have not had it reciprocated? Could it be that somehow internally you come across as unavailable yourself? Again, just guesses.

Or it could be that we all have different ways we love, maybe your style of love is different from your mate's style. Maybe you're judging them by your own criteria of what it is to be in a committed relationship? It happens. I'm extremely ( was at least ha!) passionate person, my husband was more realistic/down to earth. I used to accuse him of not being 'there' etc but now I see it differently. His love was action based mine was emotionally word charged based. Neither is right or wrong, just different.

Hope this helped slightly.

May 7, 2014

Seems to me you're getting involved with the wrong types. Some people just are like that, never fully in.

And borrowing intimacy issues / commitment-phobia / etc., I cannot understand WHY. I can't believe that people are just "like that"--surely being apathetic about your relationship suggests the person has serious issues? Surely that's not just a "way to be"?

I don't mean this offensively at all but can it be a case of attracting what you exude? I say this because you mention how committed you are as a partner but somehow have not had it reciprocated? Could it be that somehow internally you come across as unavailable yourself? Again, just guesses.

It could be. How can I tell? I'm really asking. After all, I can't be in a relationship with myself, outside myself. I honestly don't know whether I'm being unavailable. Unless staying in a relationship that leaves you feeling emotionally unfulfilled represents a form of "unavailability," since you're not being true to yourself and thus are "unavailable" to yourself, which translates to a kind of "dishonesty" to the other person? Or "inauthenticity"?

Or it could be that we all have different ways we love, maybe your style of love is different from your mate's style. Maybe you're judging them by your own criteria of what it is to be in a committed relationship? It happens. I'm extremely ( was at least ha!) passionate person, my husband was more realistic/down to earth. I used to accuse him of not being 'there' etc but now I see it differently. His love was action based mine was emotionally word charged based. Neither is right or wrong, just different.

I definitely see what you mean. I don't think that was the case with my most recent ex. With him, there were constant excuses about why we couldn't talk about the future every time I brought it up...and I didn't begin bringing it up until we'd been dating two years. Every time, there was a different "reason" why we couldn't talk about the future. And he was very stuck in his life the entire three and a half years we dated and did little to try to improve his situation. He didn't seek help but just complained about the same thing. Also, though he said he loved me all the time, he could also be very irritable and sabotage our nice interactions by taking offense to some utterly benign thing I'd say and blowing up over it, then blaming me when I reacted with shock and hurt. ANd lastly, he abruptly ended the relationship with an email and never has looked back and it has been nearly nine months now.

I realize now that I basically carried the relationship. He was not all in. And I'd feel it, and ask him, "Do you love me?" "Yes," he'd say. "Do you see a future with me?" "Yes," he'd say. "Do you want to marry me?" "Yes," he'd say. And yet, he threw the relationship away and it took me by surprise because I thought he was more "in" than that.

I just don't understand

May 7, 2014

I definitely see what you mean. I don't think that was the case with my most recent ex. With him, there were constant excuses about why we couldn't talk about the future every time I brought it up...and I didn't begin bringing it up until we'd been dating two years. Every time, there was a different "reason" why we couldn't talk about the future. And he was very stuck in his life the entire three and a half years we dated and did little to try to improve his situation. He didn't seek help but just complained about the same thing. Also, though he said he loved me all the time, he could also be very irritable and sabotage our nice interactions by taking offense to some utterly benign thing I'd say and blowing up over it, then blaming me when I reacted with shock and hurt. ANd lastly, he abruptly ended the relationship with an email and never has looked back and it has been nearly nine months now.

I realize now that I basically carried the relationship. He was not all in. And I'd feel it, and ask him, "Do you love me?" "Yes," he'd say. "Do you see a future with me?" "Yes," he'd say. "Do you want to marry me?" "Yes," he'd say. And yet, he threw the relationship away and it took me by surprise because I thought he was more "in" than that.

I just don't understand

It seems from your experience, you were emotionally invested (all in), and your ex was not fully emotionally invested (just toe in) as you. You wanted more from him, and he couldn't do that. By him leaving the way he did, simply means he wasn't mature enough for what he was taking part in.

I can't give you an answer to why some people are unwilling to be all in for a relationship, because it could be anything. But I can comment on your action as to why did you feel of continuing to invest into a relationship (being all in) when there were clear signs that your ex was barely in it? Maybe you felt you could prove your dedication, would convince him to do the same. In reality you can never control the other person in the relationship, to force or coerce them to put more into it, but you do have full control of what you can do to improve the situation for yourself. Sometimes that means cutting off someone that just has their toes in.

May 7, 2014

It seems from your experience, you were emotionally invested (all in), and your ex was not fully emotionally invested (just toe in) as you. You wanted more from him, and he couldn't do that. By him leaving the way he did, simply means he wasn't mature enough for what he was taking part in.

In his breakup email, he said he feels always that he's two steps behind me, and is always going to be. I didn't see it that way, but he could really be shockingly immature, such as being provocative at the very moment we're trying to have a conversation about his penchant for provoking discord. He said because he feels two steps behind me, he "can't give you what you want. It's neither right nor wrong, but the truth. We both deserve to be happy, GC."

Ugh.

I can't give you an answer to why some people are unwilling to be all in for a relationship, because it could be anything. But I can comment on your action as to why did you feel of continuing to invest into a relationship (being all in) when there were clear signs that your ex was barely in it? Maybe you felt you could prove your dedication, would convince him to do the same. In reality you can never control the other person in the relationship, to force or coerce them to put more into it, but you do have full control of what you can do to improve the situation for yourself. Sometimes that means cutting off someone that just has their toes in.

I admit I did try to coerce him: first, to being more present in the relationship, and then to being honest about where he really stood in the relationship. Finally a year ago I initiated a break for six weeks, which I hoped would rouse him to take the relationship more seriously or at least to figure out what he wanted regarding us. All I got was more wishy-washy behavior and no clear answers. I was so, so frustrated because I couldn't even get honesty from him. Finally I just blew up; I could take it no more.

Back in 2011, I seriously considered leaving the relationship. I did not, however, because (to answer your question) I loved him. I really did. And I didn't want to give up and hoped that things would evolve to a better place. I also think I didn't give up because I didn't recognize, cognitively, his lack of investment. I believed he was just as in it as me, wanted it as much as me--after all, he always told me he loved me--and he just acted badly at times because he was immature, I thought. That's why I started this thread. I am hoping that if I can understand a little more about why people might stay in relationships but be minimally invested, then perhaps I could better recognize it and get out before I become so invested I'm devastated when the relationship ends.

May 7, 2014

I completely agree with Frank2thepoint. I was in a similar previous relationship for a year. I saw SO many red flags. I guess sometimes we women tend to not want to do things out of fear or we think maybe if he will eventually realize that WE are the one for them. Its a complicated situation. My prior relationships were NOT like this at all. My ex was the only man that I came to realize "was just not into me."

Sounds to me like your ex-boyfriend would respond "yes" to all your important questions about love and a future and not really mean it, because he just didn't want to "talk" about it and sorry to say, maybe he just wasn't into you.

Sounds very familiar to me. My ex would never want to talk about the relationship, never said "I love you" and never kissed me. But he would also say things like "I want to be with you" and "I can't see my life without you"

I was confused a lot. I can't believe I put up with that for a year. I finally realized that when a man want to be with you, and have a future with you, YOU will never have to ask if he loves you and you will never feel lost.

Don't blame yourself. It's wasn't you! It was him!

May 7, 2014

And borrowing intimacy issues / commitment-phobia / etc., I cannot understand WHY. I can't believe that people are just "like that"--surely being apathetic about your relationship suggests the person has serious issues? Surely that's not just a "way to be"?

It could be. How can I tell? I'm really asking. After all, I can't be in a relationship with myself, outside myself. I honestly don't know whether I'm being unavailable. Unless staying in a relationship that leaves you feeling emotionally unfulfilled represents a form of "unavailability," since you're not being true to yourself and thus are "unavailable" to yourself, which translates to a kind of "dishonesty" to the other person? Or "inauthenticity"?

I definitely see what you mean. I don't think that was the case with my most recent ex. With him, there were constant excuses about why we couldn't talk about the future every time I brought it up...and I didn't begin bringing it up until we'd been dating two years. Every time, there was a different "reason" why we couldn't talk about the future. And he was very stuck in his life the entire three and a half years we dated and did little to try to improve his situation. He didn't seek help but just complained about the same thing. Also, though he said he loved me all the time, he could also be very irritable and sabotage our nice interactions by taking offense to some utterly benign thing I'd say and blowing up over it, then blaming me when I reacted with shock and hurt. ANd lastly, he abruptly ended the relationship with an email and never has looked back and it has been nearly nine months now.

I realize now that I basically carried the relationship. He was not all in. And I'd feel it, and ask him, "Do you love me?" "Yes," he'd say. "Do you see a future with me?" "Yes," he'd say. "Do you want to marry me?" "Yes," he'd say. And yet, he threw the relationship away and it took me by surprise because I thought he was more "in" than that.

I just don't understand

A few years ago a friend of mine ( let's call her Lucy), a beautiful successful lady asked me why it was so difficult to find a partner when others were finding it so easy. Bear in mind she had asked me this many many many times and after a certain point( and many martinis) I told her it's because she was far sexual.

At this she flipped as I'd assume anyone would and went on this tirade at how I could say that when she'd only had 2 or 3 long terms lovers and another friend had had many many more. I told her the difference is this alledged 'loose' friend had all these lovers and conquests or whatever it is you call them, because SHE wanted to. She was concerned about her needs and whatever decision she took was because SHE wanted to.

Lucy on the other hand may have only had two or three and only within the confinements of a long term relationship but it was PREDOMINANTLY only to keep him satisfied. She was perified of losing this man so she made every effort to be 'accomodating', not to 'ask the wrong questions' to not be explicit about HER needs but all under the guise of being 'chilled.'

You see where I'm getting with this? Probably not haha but I'll try to elaborate more. What I'm essentially saying is, and this is based on your response, you put FAR more emphasis on trying to be the way you think you should be and you neglect your own needs and wants.

Why should you have to wait a certain time period before you have a talk? You are part of the relationship too. It's not the talk that is the problem, it's the way you say and what is the underlying tone to it. You have a lot to give, you WANT a serious relationship if he doesn't that is FINE but there is NO need to hide your own LIFE goals as a way to appear 'chilled' or cool or whatever it is.

Neither a man or a woman is a grand prize in the end, he should be just as lucky to have you as him. You need to start believing that as well. I think we often forget that people are far more intuitive than we give them credit for.

Again, this is just based on what I read and my feelings

May 7, 2014

Neither a man or a woman is a grand prize in the end, he should be just as lucky to have you as him. You need to start believing that as well. I think we often forget that people are far more intuitive than we give them credit for.

What do you mean--that inadvertently I communicated that he was the prize to be won and I was not, and thus he felt he didn't have to do any work?

If so, I can't imagine that that could have "created" his apathetic behavior. He was apathetic about all areas of his life, seemingly even before he met me, but during the period we dated his apathy towards everything sunk to an all-time low.

I just can't see that, short of leaving, I could have done anything to change the outcome. In this relationship, if I'd valued myself more I'd not have stayed in it.

That's a sad discovery to make

May 7, 2014

What do you mean--that inadvertently I communicated that he was the prize to be won and I was not, and thus he felt he didn't have to do any work?

If so, I can't imagine that that could have "created" his apathetic behavior. He was apathetic about all areas of his life, seemingly even before he met me, but during the period we dated his apathy towards everything sunk to an all-time low.

I just can't see that, short of leaving, I could have done anything to change the outcome. In this relationship, if I'd valued myself more I'd not have stayed in it.

That's a sad discovery to make

I'm really sorry that you were so hurt. It's not easy, I know that. I think, and again this is based on what you've said, he knew he 'had' you but had he been the right individual, it probably would have been an entirely different story. I can't say for certain, only you can as you are the person who had all these years with him.

You mention the overall apathy, this is a very interesting thing. Reason I say this is that it could mean it's just him. He may be the type who is never jolted into reaction until he loses something or is about to. I say this because I'm kind of like that. It more than likely had nothing to do with you explicitly but more so, him. So don't be harsh on yourself. Just know whatever will be will be but never forget the power of gut instinct. I think had you been comfortable and secure with him, all these what ifs, insecurities and questions would not be as strong as they were.

Any way, just a stab in the air. Matters of the heart are so very complicated.

May 7, 2014

Some people don't leave even when they're not invested because they don't have someone else waiting in the wings.

Based on a true story.

May 7, 2014

I realize now that I basically carried the relationship. He was not all in. And I'd feel it, and ask him, "Do you love me?" "Yes," he'd say. "Do you see a future with me?" "Yes," he'd say. "Do you want to marry me?" "Yes," he'd say. And yet, he threw the relationship away and it took me by surprise because I thought he was more "in" than that.

I just don't understand

If he were really that into you, you would never have to ask those questions.

You were his placeholder until he found something better. That's rough to say, but I"ve btdt. He will lead you on. It's not nice, but that's what people do.

You two were together how long? If a man isn't trying to put a ring on it after 2 or 3 years, I move on. I don't force the issue either, and I've btdt as well.

May 10, 2014

If he were really that into you, you would never have to ask those questions.
You were his placeholder until he found something better. That's rough to say, but I"ve btdt. He will lead you on. It's not nice, but that's what people do.

You two were together how long? If a man isn't trying to put a ring on it after 2 or 3 years, I move on. I don't force the issue either, and I've btdt as well.

Thanks, HotPotato. Can you or someone shed light on this: if he wasn't into me for whatever reason (and I actually think he was, but wasn't progressing at all in his life and had other psychological issues that I kept picking up on and that kept him from committing to anything--not that that makes this all any less confusing or less hurtful and yeah, it still comes across as not being into me), then why let me get so close with his family?

I knew his mom first, as she was my boss in the seasonal job I had when I first moved here. I met her son through another venue. After dating only 3 months I traveled with him to the wedding of a friend of his; we traveled to the family ranch to celebrate his grandmother's 80th birthday, as well. And then I spent three Christmases and Thanksgivings with his family; his mom had bought me my own stocking; I developed relationships with his little nieces. Granted, he was apathetic with it all, just rolling with it while his family and I really took to each other. I really felt they all loved me very much. And I felt that if my ex weren't on board then he wouldn't allow me or them to get so involved and wouldn't allow me and them to build such expectations.

He also was very attentive to my mother when she came to visit and they got along great. Just so confusing, why anyone would waste so many people's time, including his own ???

May 30, 2014

Hi Green cove,

Its funny how similar our story is...

He didn't dodge the future talk with me he just kept saying he knows he can get there emotionally but he was always not there yet

I finally said to him I couldn't do it anymore

that was 2 and half weeks ago and I saw that he created a new dating profile (he deleted his original one when we were dating)

May 30, 2014

Didn't read the other posts, but this is a common question asked by women in general.

It's like having a job you're not willing to settle for, a man works at a grocery store but it doesn't mean he wants to do that for the rest of his life or even very interested in the job, it doesn't mean he is completely happy and looking at staying there in the long-term. He might attend the company events, he might joke and laugh with his co-workers while there...but it doesn't mean he wants to stay there.

Now the grocery store owner might wonder or ask why he's still around if he doesn't enjoy his job, or what they can do to make him happier or stick around since he's a good worker...increase the pay? only so much he can do that for the job, give him more hours? give him less? be more flexible in the schedule? what can he do?

But what the owner isn't willing to accept or understand is, there is no way this guy is going to be happy working at a grocery store, because he might have dreams of being a lawyer, doctor, professional this or that...right now he's just working there to get by, to get his needs met..this is what he has to do to survive, he needs the money, he needs the job because he doesn't want to sit home unemployed, he has bills and maybe he even lacks the motivation and will to move on, even confidence...maybe he's uncomfortably comfortable with this position and that's why he stays, maybe it's not everything he wants, but in the end he gives up hope and settles for "reality".

But one day a new job is offered by another company or he just can't pretend anymore, it might be a better job, might be worse, might be nothing at all after all..but in time things have to change, and it will at least be something different after working at the grocery store...so then he leaves and starts working there or does something else, especially with the overbearing pressure and demands of the owner in trying to make him happy there at the store, after a while it becomes too much...but the owner wants to know what the "future" holds after all, and plan for his own agenda.

Now he might not ever have that dream job, he might not ever make the money he feel he wants to make or deserves, but you can all understand why he's doing that job he's doing now right? that's all he's got...that's what his options are at the moment, and until that dream job comes along that he really has the motivation and desire for, he's always going to have one foot out the door or eye on the newspaper looking for something else. Along the way he might learn what he lost and what he gained, trying to figure out what was the "right" decision in his past.

The problem for women is they think that ALL THESE OTHER THINGS, that most men never think about as important or even significant but are still rationalized and made sense somehow among women that perpetuate this belief that everything is going "well" or he just needs time or some crap like that..he's doing this with family and that, and this so that has to mean SOMETHING.

Well...it doesn't have to mean anything, how a person feels on the inside about you is what is important, nothing on the surface will ever change that.

But anyway, you will likely continue rationalizing this in your own head and trying to "figure it out" with all these proofs and details that you feel are irrelevant...unfortunately it's never going to do you any good, you're just going to have to accept he's moved on and regardless of what you think you had, it wasn't the truth. You can blame it on this or that, but clearly you weren't the one he was ready or willing to invest in the long-term, he never felt that strongly about you, in spite of his behavior and his relationship with you...doesn't mean he didn't feel anything or didn't like you, he just didn't see that future with you.

But don't be surprised if he doesn't come back...men usually second guess their decisions, especially when they're trying to have it all.

May 30, 2014

He also was very attentive to my mother when she came to visit and they got along great. Just so confusing, why anyone would waste so many people's time, including his own ???

He wasn't wasting his time. He was enjoying his life and his relationship as it was. He just didn't desire to make it permanent.

A man who really desires marriage with you will make it quite clear. There will be no question, and the conversations will be easy and fun. A man who avoids that conversation doesn't want to "rock the boat" (enjoys what he has right now, wants to keep it for as long as he is enjoying it), but also doesn't really want the future you want.

Past the early 20s, I feel like this should be clear by the 12 month mark. If things aren't moving in that direction, and marriage talk isn't easy and mutually pleasant at the 12 month mark, move on before you get more invested.

May 30, 2014

Especially why would someone do that when their perpetual lack of full investment is causing conflict that in turn causes them discomfort. If people with this mentality stay because of sex, I don't get that, either, because when conflict continues long enough, the sex life is affected.

Why stay if you are looking for something serious and you can tell the other person isn't invested? That's the part I don't get. But yeah, it's for the sex, comfort, company, etc. Guys start making noises about marriage in my experience about 6 months - a year in, otherwise they aren't thinking long term.

May 30, 2014

One of the issues I found myself having a hard time with is so many guys that want to go out with me treat women as replaceable or placeholders. I'll ask about past relationships to get a feel for what I might expect to happen to me and needless to say I don't date a lot because to me it is a waste of my time to be a "Miss Right Now". I fell for that once and I used five years of my life up before I realized what I truly meant to him.

May 31, 2014

Why stay if you are looking for something serious and you can tell the other person isn't invested? That's the part I don't get.

Well, I guess that's the important question, isn't it? I guess in part the answer is because I can't tell the difference between someone not invested because of issues in his own life (depression, career failure, etc.), and someone not invested because he's not as into you as he claims to be.

I will say that I think this idea of it always being because the guy just doesn't feel you're "the one," while it might be true in some cases, is much more rarely the case than gets loaded on women to make them feel it's some lack in THEM. Sometimes it's the simple fact that the dude doesn't know his proverbial a*s from his elbow, is shallow and out of touch with himself, and therefore is incapable of investing in ANYONE.

May 31, 2014

Does it matter why the man isn't invested?

See him as he is. Don't make excuses for him. By 12 months, if he isn't obviously and consistently invested, with movement in that direction throughout the first year, leave.

May 31, 2014

Does it matter why the man isn't invested?

See him as he is. Don't make excuses for him. By 12 months, if he isn't obviously and consistently invested, with movement in that direction throughout the first year, leave.

I know you're right, but I have a hard time cutting the cord if I myself am very invested in the person. If I care about him a lot and his lack of investment seems to come from depression or some such, I feel like I should make an effort to support him first before leaving.

How do you get the strength and conviction to walk when the non-invested is someone a) who won't or can't fully explain what is going on and b) whom you really love?

May 31, 2014

I think the answer is self worth and self protection. If you're solid on your own, you don't tolerate a partner who is a weight that drags you down. You can still care about and help a person, but you can be their friend, not a partner.

May 31, 2014

Hmm, okay, I see that. It's the notion that you must not love anyone more than you love yourself.

But...how can you see clearly, through your love for the other person, that loving them is dragging you down? After all, everyone goes through difficult times and even people with generally great attitudes and plenty of pluck get into tough situations out of their control. If you're in a relationship with even such a person at such a time, of course it's going to drag you down somewhat, too. But I'm understanding you to NOT be referring to that kind of "dragging down." So how do you tell the difference, and choose to walk?

Thanks in advance for clarifying. This is a real sticking point for me.

May 31, 2014

Sure, everyone has difficult times, but that doesn't mean pulling away from a partner. Successful couples circle wagons and look to each other for support in rough times, and come out stronger and more connected.

As a general rule, try to limit your investment in the relationship to match his. If you are not his priority, don't make him your priority.

May 31, 2014

Sure, everyone has difficult times, but that doesn't mean pulling away from a partner. Successful couples circle wagons and look to each other for support in rough times, and come out stronger and more connected.

As a general rule, try to limit your investment in the relationship to match his. If you are not his priority, don't make him your priority.

Can "priority" also translate to "emotional openness"? All of my partners "prioritized" me in the sense that they always were eager to spend time with me, go places together, etc., but they stayed distant from me emotionally. I got confused by these messages, and tried to respond to the confusion by being empathic about their emotional distance, e.g., "Oh, it's just really hard for him to express what he's feeling / admit he's struggling / discuss what he wants out of life/our relationship/his career/me."

The "empathic" approach became pure excuse-making when this emotional distance kept the relationship from progressing. Then I'd start feeling frustrated and hurt, and I'd *beg* them to communicate, which only resulted in angering them and/or making them shut down even more. Then I"d get mad and demand change and that's when they all stomped off from the relationship and never looked back.

Clearly I've chosen the wrong guys. But where in this did I get stuck? If your partner gets emotionally distant, do you just leave them alone, or in my case should I have just bailed at the first hint of emotional distance? Going back to my original question in this post: does emotional distance equal not making me a priority?

May 31, 2014

So I have a really, really hard time understanding the mentality of being in a relationship, letting it go on and on for years, and only having a toe in in terms of investment and effort. Why would someone do that; can anyone relate?

Attachment style - lacks the ability or willingness for elemental emotional attachments

End game - a goal

Placeholding relationship - works until something more suitable or profitable comes along

Inability to be alone

That's my short list....

Sign In

Why stay, and not be fully invested?

Recommended Posts

Zapbasket

sameoldthing

Zapbasket

Frank2thepoint

Zapbasket

Juventa2012

sameoldthing

Zapbasket

sameoldthing

hotpotato

hotpotato

Zapbasket

Sophia1213

Ninjainpajamas

xxoo

Emilia

Scarlet2

Zapbasket

xxoo

Zapbasket

xxoo

Zapbasket

xxoo

Zapbasket

carhill

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...