Well, it's one of the many "socially correct" truths about relationships that I think are either misleading or simply wrong as stated.
I see cliches about not wanting "games," as well as declarations about being independent as generally obfuscating deeper truths about people relate (should relate) romantically.
Romantic love, in my view, is about achieving a union. A true, deep, and healthy union doesn't require a list of "medical warnings" like "no drama" or "my independence must be respected." It's not about two people co-existing, in other words, but about two people bonding, being together. Two is better than one kind of deal.
Well, again, "independent" is one of those eye-of-the-beholder traits. It means something different to everyone.
Some people believe being independent means saying/believing things like: "I don't need you in my life - I have all the happiness within me - but someone might make a good complement to that." I've heard that a lot here. Others mean that they like to do things alone and/or need a lot of their "private space." Still others might mean being allowed to tie their own shoelaces.
I don't like the "I don't need you except as a complementary person" or the "I need my private space" kind of people. Or, more accurately, I don't like (as a romantic partner) the kind of people who feel they must announce those kinds of things.
It's kind of like the point I've been making (in other threads) about emphasizing the negative. It's not that there aren't qualities we view negatively, but we ought, in my view, not emphasize them - that is, our methodology should consist of seeking what we like in a person, not what we don't like.
Similarly, our emphasis should be on seeking a person we may become very attached to (positive methodology), as opposed to someone who will leave us alone (negative methodology).
Your original post is far to vague to reply substantively to. Though I have an idea what people *generally* mean when they refer to "drama," one's conception of that clearly varies from person to person. What's "drama" to one is "interesting" or "exciting" to another. Some people consider "drama" to consist of having an actual serious conversation. I met a number of women online who responded negatively to the very notion of having a conversation which might involve some controversy and debate. Perhaps they considered that to be "drama" - I don't know.
I do know that I'm not compatible with any woman who makes "drama-evasion" a central plank of her compatibility stance. Reminds me of those profiles that state: "Not into games." That seems more reflective of individual relationship misadventures - that is, focusing on what went wrong in prior relationships rather than on what makes one happy in a relationship - and I don't think that's a very productive approach when seeking a romantic relationship.
Just hovering there peacefully (it was a glowing spherical object). My son and a half-dozen of his friends watched a silent triangular craft land briefly on a hill maybe 50 - 75 yards from them out in the California countryside one night. My sighting was in the Northern CA countryside as well, though it during a hot summer day. (And no, I wasn't drinking any beer...yet.)
Well, first I'd contact him and tell him what you know (assuming you haven't already "talked" to him).
I believe she does have the right to know, even though it will hurt her, because it seems likely that he will do this again (and again!), and she deserves to be informed of this aspect of his character.
I was wondering the same thing. Whether or not they've met in person has some relevance to this situation. First, it's relevant to the reality of the professed emotions (love not being likely sans physical meeting, so the likelihood of illusion is much higher), and second, a day without communication is less grievous for those who know each other in person, I think (though one day isn't particularly grievous in any case; sometimes it's the best medicine during a disagreement).
Third, if your relationship is exclusively "virtual," that places a different and often more problematic set of difficulties, where ceasing communication might be more significant than in a "Real Life" relationship.
I'm glad to hear you've re-established contact. For what it's worth, I see nothing at all alarming or unusual in the man's response or in your situation in general. Love ain't easy - particularly the initial feelings of vulnerability until your relationship clarifies.
RE: Can or Do "Independent" people make good "Partners"?
At least I'll get there before GG does!