|
|
Post by tnr9 on Sept 10, 2019 12:57:49 GMT
Why does it either have to be casual, no strings, or full on live in with progression to marriage? Why does it have to be so black and white? Isn’t there a middle way that isn’t sleazy? Through this, I’ve seen the anxious side rather than my avoidant side come out. It’s been interesting to watch, but sad to be in, if that makes any sense. 8675309 , I agree about the dating sites. Jeb’s book sums up middle age dating very well. The princess thing.... life isn’t a fairy tale. It doesn’t go to timetable, and you don’t end up living on the canals driving a Mercedes. And I won’t pay for it. I’m flat out supporting myself. Sometimes, you just have to let go of the fairytale and live life as it comes. I don’t understand why people try to do the same things over and again that fail. I don’t think it has to be either....I think “casual” implies a physical relationship without timeframe of string attached....take out the dating component, take out the physicality....you have a friendship.....that is what I want. I want to be friends first....I don’t want the pressure of dating...I don’t want the physicality of “casual”. I see in hindsight that the moment I fell so hard for B it was game over...and that is sad because I do really love the man he is....not perfect by any stretch of the imagination....but in our best moments....it felt “comfortable”....like we understood each other. I miss that so much. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Sept 10, 2019 13:26:24 GMT
Why does it either have to be casual, no strings, or full on live in with progression to marriage? Why does it have to be so black and white? It doesn't have to be, but many people do know exactly what they want especially as they get older (which also makes them less willing to compromise)... hence, black and white. If they are emotionally stable, they tend to want a bigger commitment for a longer-term lots-of-time invested involvement. And for people who want that, theoretically looking for other people who want the same, then it doesn't seem like a big deal to accept and offer the same reciprocity. Those are exactly the people you don't want to even date because your lifestyle values aren't aligned. But not everyone wants that, stable or not. And someone who doesn't want that is more likely to still be single as you get older, especially if they've never been married, so there's definitely still a chance for you to find it. It just takes effort to find someone who wants the same things as you if it's less conventional, and that's a bit more about luck and direct communication early on (though, yes, people can change their minds). But you've got examples of women on the board who don't want to get married (or re-married), so they exist. The princess thing, however, is actually more within your control. I know far more financially independent women than princess ones (though I know some of them, too). That may be a type you're connecting with that you'll have to work on identifying early and passing on as well. Do you find you're blind-sided when you find out women you're meeting have the princess mentality, or is that obvious early on and you've stayed to give them a chance anyway? I know you've written about how it isn't always easy for you to find dates and so getting pickier about these two things may seem a little daunting, but in the ways in which you do know what you're looking for, it's going to save you the pain of incompatibility later. Since, you have been very consistent posting here in knowing long-term without living together/marriage and not generally financially supporting your partner are two things you don't want to compromise yourself on. |
|
|
|
Post by anne12 on Sept 10, 2019 13:42:04 GMT
mrob Do you think that this "prinsess thing" that you are talking about, can be a defence mecanism ? You could call your profile name on a dating site LAT "living apart together". You only have to find one partner. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_apart_together
|
|
|
|
Post by mrob on Sept 10, 2019 14:15:12 GMT
anne12, that’s all I want, encompassed in three letters. Mine is a defence mechanism as well, without doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by number9 on Sept 11, 2019 0:05:43 GMT
Why does it either have to be casual, no strings, or full on live in with progression to marriage? Why does it have to be so black and white? Isn’t there a middle way that isn’t sleazy? Through this, I’ve seen the anxious side rather than my avoidant side come out. It’s been interesting to watch, but sad to be in, if that makes any sense. 8675309 , I agree about the dating sites. Jeb’s book sums up middle age dating very well. The princess thing.... life isn’t a fairy tale. It doesn’t go to timetable, and you don’t end up living on the canals driving a Mercedes. And I won’t pay for it. I’m flat out supporting myself. Sometimes, you just have to let go of the fairytale and live life as it comes. I don’t understand why people try to do the same things over and again that fail. As a woman, I cringe when I see people acting out the fairy princess fantasy. Bridezilla! haha I think there is a middle way, for sure: the concept of "living apart together" (LAT) i.e. a committed relationship in which both people live in separate homes. That's what I want (and what I have); so do a number of other people I know. I think it's great! Having someone around all the time seems pretty annoying. That's how it's always been when I lived with a partner. The person is always there, by default. You don't need to go out of your way to see them; there may be little mystery to enjoy in each other's lives. (Time for "date night" hahaha! I can only imagine how much pressure and bickering that may lead to!) For context, I'm 52 (solo parent, for many years, to a 19-year-old in college) and he's 53. I first heard about the concept of being a LAT couple a few years ago -- from a Facebook friend who is (was?) making a documentary on the topic: apartnersthemovie.com/The_Movie.html |
|
|
|
Post by mrob on Sept 11, 2019 4:22:45 GMT
Isn’t that just perfect? It may not fix everything, but I don’t think it would really trigger my avoidance. The intimacy I can do, the threat of destitution I can’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by tnr9 on Sept 11, 2019 12:13:11 GMT
Isn’t that just perfect? It may not fix everything, but I don’t think it would really trigger my avoidance. The intimacy I can do, the threat of destitution I can’t. Have you discussed this idea with any of your dates? Honestly....I don’t think having separate homes is an issue for a lot of people...I think it comes down more to committed versus casual. I think a lot of people are not about casual. I actually like like the idea of one house, separate bedrooms, work spaces etc. It is the casual relationship I cannot do. |
|
|
|
Post by mrob on Sept 12, 2019 5:39:20 GMT
Same house wouldn’t relieve the financial stuff for me, so I think I’d still deactivate at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyidiot on Sept 12, 2019 8:16:23 GMT
mrob This is a tough one. I really used to be convinced that I never wanted to live with a partner again. Then after I really started working on my attachment stuff and actually got into a serious relationship, I started to think maybe I do want to live with him someday. We already spend more time together than people who live together anyway. But now I am sort of back to thinking maybe having separate homes is best, or at least I'm just confused now. I also worry that it's unrealistic to expect anyone who wants a deep committed monogamous relationship to not expect that we will move in together within a year. It's so funny how different we all are, same house separate bedrooms is my worst nightmare, tnr9 , to me it's like the worst of both worlds. What do you like about the idea?
|
|
