Why stay, and not be fully invested?

[Zapbasket]

 

End game - a goal

 

 

What do you mean? Is this like a placeholding relationship?

[BC1980]

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?

 

Your relationships sounds so much like mine. I've had all the questions you are asking. Why let me get close to his family, his son, live together, have joint finances, talk about "when we are married," ect. Why do all of that? I truly think that some people over estimate their ability to commit. It's toxic and unhealthy, but I'm not entirely sure it's always conscious. If it is, I think they push those emotions away because they are unpleasant.

 

My ex had extreme difficulty with interpersonal relationships. Something was missing. I saw glimpses of true emotion at times, but there was just something not right. I can't entirely explain it, but his father was the same way. My ex had also lost a child and his first spouse, which likely tipped him over the edge. Maybe he never grieved properly. I don't know.

 

I read a book called "Mr. Unavailable and the Fallback Girl" by Natalie Lue that explains a lot of what you are asking. It basically explained my entire relationship history with men.

[carhill]

What do you mean? Is this like a placeholding relationship?

They could be interrelated but I listed them separately because an 'end game' isn't necessarily relationship-oriented.

 

Some people are pragmatic and view other people as stepping stones along their path to a personal goal in life. The person is interchangeable beyond being the appropriate stone to step on at that particular time and place.

 

A place-holding relationship can be different, mainly in the 'it's good enough for now' category, with unspecified or undetermined goals at inception but rather a clear image of the interaction being transitory. Without investment, when the next better deal comes along, it's easy to simply move on. No detachment necessary. That said, a place-holding relationship can have an end-game, as example where one person maintains or improves their social status while waiting for their desired partner to become available. Happens!

[Zapbasket]

I truly think that some people over estimate their ability to commit. It's toxic and unhealthy, but I'm not entirely sure it's always conscious. If it is, I think they push those emotions away because they are unpleasant.

 

I think you're right. I think this was true of my ex. I could tell he tried to do the "right" relationship things, and he was constantly in communication with his mother (weird, I know) about how to handle our relationship, and I always felt that around her or after he spoke with her his behavior was better. But he could never sustain it. His impatience and irritability and...lethargy? still trying to figure that one out...would get the better of him and he'd snap. Then I'd get hurt and mad, and round and round it would go. It was similar with my exes before him, but with my most recent relationship what was so maddening and confusing was that he SEEMED to have all the right pieces, something was just not. quite. right. and he always fell horribly short.

 

My ex had extreme difficulty with interpersonal relationships. Something was missing. I saw glimpses of true emotion at times, but there was just something not right. I can't entirely explain it, but his father was the same way. My ex had also lost a child and his first spouse, which likely tipped him over the edge. Maybe he never grieved properly. I don't know.

 

This stuff is huge, and you should take heart that all that waffling he put you through was much less about you, perhaps not at all about you, and much more about his own issues. He loved and lost in the most absolute and agonizing way; it's no wonder all kinds of issues would crop up when he approached that threshold of commitment again. BUT--and it's so much easier for me to see this with your situation than with mine--even so, it's no excuse and this is where I think empathy gets us into trouble. We all falter and fail, but people who have true CHARACTER and INTEGRITY commit to finding a way through the thicket, especially when their fears, etc. are hurting another person. People with character, fully realized people who take responsibility for who they are and their experience and what they bring to a relationship, will not just brush it under the rug, blame another person, or run away. So, yeah, boo hoo to your ex for his misfortune. He still should be held accountable for how he treated YOU.

 

 

I read a book called "Mr. Unavailable and the Fallback Girl" by Natalie Lue that explains a lot of what you are asking. It basically explained my entire relationship history with men.

 

I just read He's Scared, She's Scared by Steven Carter and Julia Sokol. You might find it helpful; I certainly did--especially seeing how in choosing commitment-adverse men, I'm expressing commitment fears of my own.

 

I read Natalie's blog and plan to check out "Mr. U...", as well.

[Zapbasket]

They could be interrelated but I listed them separately because an 'end game' isn't necessarily relationship-oriented.

 

Some people are pragmatic and view other people as stepping stones along their path to a personal goal in life. The person is interchangeable beyond being the appropriate stone to step on at that particular time and place.

 

A place-holding relationship can be different, mainly in the 'it's good enough for now' category, with unspecified or undetermined goals at inception but rather a clear image of the interaction being transitory. Without investment, when the next better deal comes along, it's easy to simply move on. No detachment necessary. That said, a place-holding relationship can have an end-game, as example where one person maintains or improves their social status while waiting for their desired partner to become available. Happens!

 

Omg. Isn't that a bit...sociopathic??? Especially when done consciously. How can you knowingly use someone as a means to an end when you also know that that someone things s/he has a meaningful, deep relationship with you? (By "you," btw, I don't mean you, Carhill. Unless you tell me you have KNOWINGLY done this in your relationship history!)

[xxoo]

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?

 

Yes, if they are closing you out of chunks of their life, they are not making you a priority. Look for consistency across all parts of the relationship. Good "parts" don't compensate for vital missing elements.

 

When a guy distances himself, how do you feel? Is your instinct to want him more or less? Tell yourself you are worth better treatment. Don't stick around and hope for someone to decide to treat you better. He won't!

 

In the end, you've got to be clear with yourself about what you want, and honest with yourself about what this guy is giving you.

[beach]

If you are dating and not getting out of the R what you want/expect - then it's up to you to express exactly what you would need in order to be happy!

 

The other person the has a decision to make - either they do things more to please you or they decide that they don't want to make the effort for your needs.

 

You may just not be a good match. That's ok - if you move forward and let go of what's not working for you - you will have other opportunities to see if a more suitable match may come your way.

 

If it's a battle = that's always my signal that things just aren't working out.

[carhill]

Omg. Isn't that a bit...sociopathic??? Especially when done consciously. How can you knowingly use someone as a means to an end when you also know that that someone things s/he has a meaningful, deep relationship with you? (By "you," btw, I don't mean you, Carhill. Unless you tell me you have KNOWINGLY done this in your relationship history!)

IMO, we'd have to get a bit off-topic into psychology to triage the sociopathic from the disordered from the unhealthy. People use other people all the time and rarely does it trend to the sociopathic. That's how we have 'givers' and we have 'takers', which leads me to another, tangential, aspect, that being transactional relationships, of which I coined a phrase decades ago that they were 'relationships of convenience' and that's OK when both parties are disclosed and each accept the transactions of convenience as appropriate for them. However, if the dynamic is or becomes unilateral and/or hidden, watch out. Canary dying in the mine.

 

It's a big world with a lot of people in it. We're all different. Life isn't fair. That's pretty much it.

[xxoo]

If you are dating and not getting out of the R what you want/expect - then it's up to you to express exactly what you would need in order to be happy!

 

The other person the has a decision to make - either they do things more to please you or they decide that they don't want to make the effort for your needs.

 

You may just not be a good match. That's ok - if you move forward and let go of what's not working for you - you will have other opportunities to see if a more suitable match may come your way.

 

If it's a battle = that's always my signal that things just aren't working out.

 

I agree with this except for one caveat: you can't count on the other person to openly state that they aren't willing to meet your needs. It is up to you to recognize that your needs are not met and make the choice to move on.

[Zapbasket]

Yes, if they are closing you out of chunks of their life, they are not making you a priority. Look for consistency across all parts of the relationship. Good "parts" don't compensate for vital missing elements.

 

When a guy distances himself, how do you feel? Is your instinct to want him more or less?

 

That's the creepy thing: it makes me want him more. BUT, I hate that feeling of always chasing, so that feeling of wanting him more comes with feelings of hurt and frustration.

 

And confusion, as well, because here's something I don't understand: is it really the case that people can be INCAPABLE of opening up, or are they CHOOSING to remain closed off? I always feel I am deliberately being stonewalled, and so once my patience runs out I dig in my heels and INSIST on more openness. All I get is resentment. The whole cycle feels like the guy is playing games with me, being manipulative and hugely passive-aggressive--is he?

 

Tell yourself you are worth better treatment. Don't stick around and hope for someone to decide to treat you better. He won't!

 

Thanks, XXOO. I wrote this in my journal recently: "You don't know where he's headed or with whom, and what if it all pans out in a way that would have worked for you? Then he's 'The One that Got Away.' No, no, K. is NOT that. Or so I tell myself, but then I fret: what if he becomes a better man? I guess the thing is, why be with someone you hope will become 'better' in order to be the right match for you? Someone who already is truly 'good' is always, by definition, getting 'better'--you don't even have to worry about it."

 

In the end, you've got to be clear with yourself about what you want, and honest with yourself about what this guy is giving you.

 

If only it were so easy. I find myself, once I'm deep in a relationship, unable to see clearly. How do you keep that clarity once in a relationship?

[Zapbasket]

It's a big world with a lot of people in it. We're all different. Life isn't fair. That's pretty much it.

 

All good thoughts here, Carhill, but what I still don't understand is why, when it becomes obvious to you (proverbial "you," not Carhill "you") that the other person considers the relationship to be consisting of real feelings and a shared goal of deepening intimacy, and has communicated that to you, you continue with the relationship and continue to be shady about your intentions (shady to yourself, too?) despite KNOWING that the longer it goes on, it's going to lead to hurt feelings and a good deal of so-called "drama" and "inconvenience" to you? If you're in for "convenience" of one sort or other, why not call it quits once the cat is out of the bag that you're not on the same page and save yourself all the drama?

[beach]

Are you trying to place a square in a round hole?

 

I get the feeling that you want something different than another person is capable of providing...yes?

 

When another person shows what they are about with their actions - or INACTIONS- believe it. What a person does or doesn't do defines who they are as a person. Any words can be meaningless if the actions don't match.

 

Take the action - or lack of - and look at it - what does it tell you?

 

Most people who are REALLY interested in another go to GREAT lengths to DO things to make their partner happy.

 

If that's not happening - then there's no future that's being built.

[carhill]

All good thoughts here, Carhill, but what I still don't understand is why, when it becomes obvious to you (proverbial "you," not Carhill "you") that the other person considers the relationship to be consisting of real feelings and a shared goal of deepening intimacy, and has communicated that to you, you continue with the relationship and continue to be shady about your intentions (shady to yourself, too?) despite KNOWING that the longer it goes on, it's going to lead to hurt feelings and a good deal of so-called "drama" and "inconvenience" to you? If you're in for "convenience" of one sort or other, why not call it quits once the cat is out of the bag that you're not on the same page and save yourself all the drama?

Each of us defines 'drama' differently and each of us has a differing tolerance of the 'noise' of drama. Some people can be surrounded by drama and it doesn't affect them at all. It's like a sound frequency they can't hear. Others go nuts.

 

Why would one become or continue being 'shady' once the intentions of the other are known? Well, that boils down to the personality of the individual. We're all different in how we prosecute our social lives and some people, unfortunately, simply use other people to their own ends. It may not be deliberate and with forethought and malice, but simply as normal to them as breathing. They don't even realize the possible effects on the other person. Then again, they could and simply don't care. Pure pragmatism.

 

So as to assuage your worry with disclaimers, my goal in social life was to be married for life, as my parents were, fully invested. Such journeys require both equally determined partners as well as work and transparency. We had a few issues with the latter. The main reason I haven't dated in the nearly four years since our divorce is because I don't 'feel' like investing in a woman, so I don't waste their time by dating them. That's one style out of billions. You've experienced others. All part of life.

[Zapbasket]

The main reason I haven't dated in the nearly four years since our divorce is because I don't 'feel' like investing in a woman, so I don't waste their time by dating them. That's one style out of billions. You've experienced others. All part of life.

 

I wish more folks had your "style."

 

But here's where I'm pushing: my sense is that yours is not "one style out of billions." It is part of a hierarchy of "styles" where yours is near the top because it is considerate of the other person's feelings and reflective of good personal values and integrity. To say, "This is just my 'style,'" where a person's style is to deliberately hang back in relationships so as to extract the maximum benefit with minimum effort is akin to saying, "I am lazy and selfish."

 

It's like when someone says, "Well, this is just who I am." Fine when said of certain things, but if part of "who you are" is to fling sh*t at other people unprovoked, it's not a statement of who you are, but rather a pathetic cop-out.

 

My feeling is that life may not be fair, but that doesn't give jerks carte blanche to be jerks. I ended a friendship with a couple who sat at a wine bar and said, "You know, it's people--you can do whatever you want to them," and laughed and clinked their wine glasses while I peered into my glass of Chianti, as horrified as if it were blood.

 

I just think that socially we should all be held accountable to some basic code of ethics--the Golden Rule. A lot of people who use others for their own selfish ends can't themselves bear to be used by others.

[Zapbasket]

Are you trying to place a square in a round hole?

 

I get the feeling that you want something different than another person is capable of providing...yes?

 

Yes, I choose emotionally closed-off men who have no interest in opening up. It makes for a horrible combination and I am working to unlearn my patterns so that I can choose a different partner who is better for me than the brick walls I've been with.

 

Most people who are REALLY interested in another go to GREAT lengths to DO things to make their partner happy.

 

If that's not happening - then there's no future that's being built.

 

Is this really true? I meant it, for instance, when I said in my first post on this thread that I was fully invested in all of my relationships. I was caring and interested and made an effort to move the relationship along by working on things on my end that needed addressing. But I wouldn't say I consistently went to "GREAT lengths." I just tried my best. What are examples of "great lengths" as you mean it?

[beach]

I wish more folks had your "style."

 

But here's where I'm pushing: my sense is that yours is not "one style out of billions." It is part of a hierarchy of "styles" where yours is near the top because it is considerate of the other person's feelings and reflective of good personal values and integrity. To say, "This is just my 'style,'" where a person's style is to deliberately hang back in relationships so as to extract the maximum benefit with minimum effort is akin to saying, "I am lazy and selfish."

 

It's like when someone says, "Well, this is just who I am." Fine when said of certain things, but if part of "who you are" is to fling sh*t at other people unprovoked, it's not a statement of who you are, but rather a pathetic cop-out.

 

My feeling is that life may not be fair, but that doesn't give jerks carte blanche to be jerks. I ended a friendship with a couple who sat at a wine bar and said, "You know, it's people--you can do whatever you want to them," and laughed and clinked their wine glasses while I peered into my glass of Chianti, as horrified as if it were blood.

 

I just think that socially we should all be held accountable to some basic code of ethics--the Golden Rule. A lot of people who use others for their own selfish ends can't themselves bear to be used by others.

 

It doesn't help to look at the world through rose colored glasses.

 

It's more helpful to realize what a person stands for - and base your decision to stay in that R based on a decision of whether it's best for you - or not.