I think if she moved about halfway down and I about halfway up, we'd both end up in Fargo, ND... From what I've heard, she's not overly impressed with that town.
I've tried, too, D, but GG just gives me the cold shoulder when I mention moving down to the States (or maybe her shoulder is always cold due to the climate?).
Yeah, I know, L, you and I have talked about this before. I'd suggest - not sure if I have before - that you check out the book "He's Scared, She's Scared." It might help you gain some insight, though I suspect there may not be any simple answer in your case.
I'm impressed that that guy's comment ("No, you're the player") got you to thinking. Most people would be too offended, and would find the notion too ridiculous, to consider. Congrats to you for being open-minded - and truth-minded - enough to at least consider your own role in all this.
I think the hardest thing for most people to face is their own responsibility in not only their romantic ventures but in their overall lives. A friend of mine just had a therapy session with a lady who suggested that he assume that EVERYTHING that happens in his life is his responsibility. A bit radical, perhaps, but I can see how it might, as a working hypothesis, lead to some interesting and likely helpful perspectives.
I would, but the brilliant girl's just being too complex these days for such a simple greeting!
Yeah, unfortunately luck plays a strong role in finding that person, it seems. I remember the day I found her: I had just decided to expand my search out to five hundred miles AND include no-photos (which I'd never done before, and never thought I would do). Also, I ignored her own search criteria, which didn't allow for someone my age.
To combine our lives will, admittedly, not be easy. We live in different countries, and are in rather different stages of our lives. Also, not being rich is a minor hindrance. But what it comes down to is how much we want it. There are a million reasons for it being difficult, but a little "can-do" attitude is more than capable of overcoming them.
That's true - what you wrote about developing more complex needs and the difficulty in finding someone that stems from that.
I think people vary widely in their needs. Some people's needs are doubtless not so complex at all. If you're a complex, deep kind of person, you no doubt face a greater challenge in finding a match, regardless of your personal freedom issues.
Perhaps complex people tend to be more protective of their personal freedoms - or emphasize them more - not because they truly need those freedoms more than others, but rather because they've learned how difficult it is to achieve the necessary romantic rapport versus dealing with their own complexities themselves.
You're assuming the rest of us have or want lives, D.
I think all of us struggle with this a bit - particularly as one gets older. When you're younger your life tends to be more tabula rasa - more of a blank slate - with fewer possessions and ingrained living habits.
For us older types I think it's important, while you're agonizing over all your presumably lost "personal freedoms," to keep your eye on the ultimate prize - a happy and satisfying life. That may not require a romantic relationship for everybody (though I think everyone does need to have good-quality companionship of some sort to achieve that), but for some of us the joy of sharing our lives deeply with another is pretty much unsurpassable.
I didn't miss that. But I found it puzzling that your responses after that made no reference to it. In other words, why didn't you just refer all your critics to that post rather than act (to their eyes - those who missed your explanatory statement) as though they had no good cause to respond as they did? Also, you took a fair while to give that explanation, which was further puzzling. Surely it was clear from the beginning that CSers were seeing multiple posts?
I didn't miss that. But I found it puzzling that your responses after that made no reference to it. In other words, why didn't you just refer all your critics to that post rather than act (to their eyes - those who missed your explanatory statement) as though they had no good cause to respond as they did? Also, you took a fair while to give that explanation, which was further puzzling. Surely it was clear from the beginning that CSers were seeing multiple posts?
Well, inertia and habits do play an undeniable role, L, and they both increase over time. I think it's probably harder to join up with someone romantically in proportion to one's alone time, but that could be eased or made more problematic depending on how well your long-term relationships have gone. If they were good, then you have both a template for making it work - and the incentive for that - even if you've been alone for awhile. If you haven't had good long-term relationships, then it would, I think, be doubly difficult to break out of one's solitary mold.
Sounds like you're ready for a lighter-style relationship for the moment, D. But I think we both know that you would likely be open to an expansion of that (not being a lightweight person!) when you're convinced your friend is worthy of more, no?
To me it seems clear that people vary in the depth they prefer in a relationship (on a different but relevant subject). For people who prefer depth, the lightweight romantic relationship is not an option. I think it's clear that you're an in-depth relationship kinda gal. So regardless of your cravings for independence, when you begin to bond - assuming that happens - it will be increasingly deeply, drawing you into a more and more intense relationship.
And then I have a feeling that having space and eating when you want may not seem quite so appealing...
At this rate you may eventually reach terminal amusement.
Really, is it so hard to understand and/or acknowledge that you made a mistake which caused some misunderstanding of your postings? It's surely not unreasonable or unpredictable that people would be put off by such a deluge of self-promoting threads, is it?
Right, L. What you and D describe re "freedom" versus "companionship" is a common and in most cases unavoidable quandary.
It reduces to fairly simply which you value more, and to what extent. If you value your independent freedom more, you're not ready for an intimate, long-term, committed type of relationship. If you value companionship more, then you might be. And if the values are close...then you're probably in for an interesting roller coaster ride.
I think "freedom" in this context is misleading. It's fundamentally about what one likes in one's life. It's not more "free" to do things by yourself unless you prefer doing them alone. It really comes down to preferring certain activities over others - e.g., preferring not to cook meals on a schedule to eating with another person. If you prefer eating with another person, you'll experience that as being more free than eating by yourself. And so on.
RE: WONDERWORKER'S NOVEL
Well, Wonder, since you didn't post this at least eight times, I don't see why I should even be interested.Seriously, thanks for that.