A former student of mine, “Ruth”, writes in:
When you are dating someone and want to “take it to the next
level” and be in a commited relationship and the other person claims to
not be “ready right now,” but yet still wants you in their life
romantically, is it wiser to assume that the person is simply “not that
into you” and move on? It’s a loaded question, I know. But my take on
it is that, when you feel strongly enough for someone the question of whether
or not you are “ready” goes out the window. Other people have told
me, it’s not so black and white, that you can have deep feelings for
someone and the timing can be off to where it’s just not the “right
time.” Others argue, that everyone is different and for some people it
takes a little more time to make the call as to whether or not they want to put
forth the energy into actually being in a relationship with someone. Is giving
another person time so bad? I mean, when there is nothing to lose? In the
initial stages of courtship, isn’t one person more engaged in it then the
other?
Ruth has been seeing this lad since October of last year, and describes the attraction between the two of them as deep, strong, and multi-faceted. But Ruth is readier for an enduring commitment than he is, and wants to know if “waiting it out” is wise.
A reluctance to commit to a monogamous relationship can, of course, stem from many factors. One plausible explanation is, indeed, that he (or, in some instances, she) is “just not that into you.” But that’s not, in my experience, the most common explanation for a refusal to pledge monogamy or to move towards whatever the “next level” of commitment may be.
As I’ve written before, we live in a culture where young men are encouraged to “wait to be struck by certainty.” In other words, we discourage men in particular from making any enduring commitments until they are “absolutely sure” that they are doing the right thing. Because even now, we push romantic myths much more strongly onto our daughters, young women are, generally speaking, more likely to believe that they are “sure” sooner than the men they’re dating. What we forget is a simple truism: certainty is rarely a predicate to action, but rather a consequence. Put simply, we frequently only become certain about a relationship as a result of making the commitment. If we wait for certainty as a condition for making a commitment, we may wait in vain. (I’ve got a book proposal out there that makes this point in considerably more detail.)
Years ago, when I was in high school, one of my female friends, to whom I was very close, got engaged to be married. I was at a cynical age, and this friend was my age — I was very concerned that she was rushing into something foolish. (As it turned out, she broke off the engagement, blessedly, before graduation.) But she said something to me that haunted me for years: “When you know, you know.” She meant that when you or me, or anyone else meets the “right person”, an absolute sense of the “rightness of it all” would descend. There would be clarity. True love, my friend believed, meant the absence of any doubt. And I took her at her word that it was so.
Having been married four times and divorced thrice, I know a bit about impulsive decisions. I also know how specious a claim “when you know, you know” is. Our hearts and our minds and our bodies lie to us; our capacity for self-deception (and to allow the object of our affection to deceive us) is immense. Most of us know what it’s like to have been “sure” about something or someone, only to discover down the line that we were wrong both about the other person and, more importantly, about ourselves.
There’s a difference between the “false certainty” of initial infatuation and the enduring certainty that comes over time. The foolish place their trust in the former. When they feel that certainty, they act. Conversely, when they don’t feel absolutely sure, they remain incapacitated by doubt. They don’t understand that real certainty comes as a result of action in the face of doubt; assuming that certainty is the absence of doubt is a disastrous mistake that the young all too frequently make.
I’m not a big fan of “waiting” for someone to decide what they want. I’m a big fan of ultimata. We teach young women not to give an ultimatum to their beaux, warning them against the dangers of “scaring off” a boyfriend by being too demanding and insistent. But while demanding an engagement ring after six weeks together is absurd, insisting on a monogamous commitment after nine months together isn’t. I’m a great believer in giving people options! Ruth needs to give her lad two clear options: move clearly towards a more definitive bond, or stop seeing each other. If he says “I’m not sure what I want” or “I’m not ready”, she needs to understand that sureness and readiness will probably only come as a result of his making a choice. If he waits for certainty to come first, he could wait — and keep her waiting — until the second Obama Administration.
Sixteen years ago this month, I was struggling with the decision to leave my first wife. I was in one of my many periods of temporary sobriety, and I had a Twelve Step sponsor. I was talking to Jenia (the sponsor, not the wife) about my doubts and what she called my “analysis paralysis” as I weighed, endlessly, the pros and cons of staying married. At one point, I said to Jenia, “Why won’t God give me a sign as to what I should do?” And Jenia, who was a very wise woman, told me something I’ve never forgotten: “God is waiting for you to make this decision. He won’t make it for you. But His promise is that He will be with you and strengthen you regardless of what you choose. But if you want to feel Him near, first you must choose.”
I told my wife I wanted a divorce one hour later. And indeed, the certainty only came in the aftermath of the choice.
When an ultimatum is given, as I suggest it ought to be given by Ruth, it needs to be backed up firmly. Pleas for “a little more time” need to be disregarded. And if the choice ends up being to break up, Ruth needs to accept that the break-up did not happen because she was too pushy or too demanding. All of us are deserving of being chosen, and, after a certain period of time together, all of us have a right to demand that our lovers either choose us or leave us.
I kind of agree with you with a caveat. If you’re going to give an ultimatum, it shouldn’t be an ultimatum given to manipulate, but rather to provide someone with the information upon which they can make an informed decision.
Ruth needs to ask herself - all things considered, am I happy enough with this relationship the way it is to want to continue it on these terms or, if this is the way it’s going to be, would I prefer not to be in this relationship?
The preference not to be in it on these terms could be for any number of reasons - because my emotions for this person make it impossible for me to be “free” to look for someone with whom I’m more compatible or who is willing to make the kind of committment I’m looking for, or because I’m spending more time agonizing over how he feels about me than having fun being together, or whatever.
Then, the ultimatum is not a manipulation, but providing the other person with information. This isn’t working for me. I’m looking for X. If X isn’t an option, then I don’t want what we have now.
When it’s that kind of ultimatum, then you shouldn’t have trouble following through. Because it’s all based on what you want. A more committed relationship with this person may or may not be possible - that is up to him, not up to you. But there are two things you know are possible - what you have now, and not being in a romantic relationship with this person. You should know which of those two you prefer going in.
Emily, that’s a great addition to Hugo’s post. I was in a very similar situation to what he wrote about, and I was petrified to open my mouth and say anything in fear that an ultimatum would drive the guy off — not because of the content, but because I dared issue an ultimatum at all.
Finally, it reached a point where I knew I’d hit the breaking point of not being able to “hang in there and see where it goes” any longer. Luckily, probably because it was an info-gathering ultimatum and not a maniuplative one, it was a peaceful - although sad - conversation.
All of us are deserving of being chosen, and, after a certain period of time together, all of us have a right to demand that our lovers either choose us or leave us.
Thanks, Hugo, that definitely brings me some peace of mind after many months of wondering, “But what if I’d just hung in there?” It was a difficult crossroads to be at.
Your analysis is optimistic, but I came to the “he’s just not that into me” conclusion - it provided a little more closure and certainty to my decision. If I’d spent time entertaining other reasons for his indecision, I could have ended up staying in limbo forever, and it’d gotten to a point where it just made me too sad to deal with it.
“They don’t understand that real certainty comes as a result of action in the face of doubt; assuming that certainty is the absence of doubt is a disastrous mistake that the young all too frequently make.” That describes a pretty fine line. Action in the face of doubt can come even if that doubt has validity. Someone can take action (with certainty or not, possibly out of self-deception) and realize that they made the wrong choice. That realization may not come for years. And yet, the trouble that arises from assuming certainty from the absence of doubt describes the other extreme. Quite a circle to square, that.
Maybe part of the issue is the “ratchet effect” of LTRs, the assumed increasing depth and level of commitment as a relationship continues (note that I didn’t say “progresses”). No one wants to be stuck in a bad or unfulfilling relationship, and (no offense Hugo) no one wants to have to go through a divorce or three if their needs and desires are not being completely fulfilled or change or expand later. That gets harder and more complicated to deal with the longer that a relationship goes on, and it’s usually pretty difficult to put things “on pause” or “rewind” if one or both people need time to re-evaluate what they want or else seek to expand what they’re getting (e.g.: look for something outside, go open or poly, or whatever) without stopping the movie altogether and getting completely out of their relationship first. Difficult at best in a monogamous LTR, almost absurd to even contemplate in a vanilla marriage. I don’t know, but maybe establishing and defending a norm like that from the get-go, that renegotiation and reevaluation are always possible and shouldn’t necessarily require burning all bridges, would make commitment and the acceptance of ultimata, answering “yes-no” to questions that might need a “maybe” or a “for right now”, more palatable. Part of that hangs on the social conventions of monogamy, but part of a solution might come from individuals starting to establish and defend their right to autonomy even in a relationship. It might work if people respect themselves and are able to check-in with what they want over time and also if they can respect that both they and their partners have the right to make, and if need be change, their decisions. Granted, that’s a pretty big assumption. We all can fall at times into giving short-shrift to and failing to be honest about our own needs and desires when we feel that someone else we care about could be hurt or disappointed, or into playing games manipulating other people based on that dynamic.
Maybe with the gay marriage decision, we’re starting to take the most incremental baby-steps that could lead to opening up definitions and social expectations towards relationships. I don’t know, and the argument could be made that it represents the opposite effect (e.g., possibly forcing even more relationships into the paradigm of traditional, legally-sanctioned monogamy and preemptively closing down developing alternatives). Who knows?
I noticed in the early part of this post the hint of a common thread of thought that I think is a little bit dangerous. Ruth wonders whether her boyfriend isn’t really “into her,” and he says he’s “not ready,” and often in these situations the issue becomes which of them is correct.
I think they can both be correct - that if he is really not ready, that is justification enough to say he isn’t *really* wanting to be with her. Part of being in a relationship with someone is actually … being in a relationship with them. I have been in a number of situations in which men claimed deep feelings for me but the inability to engage in any sort of relationship that was satisfying to me (or conventionally considered appropriate for people with such deep feelings). I know from experience that it can be very difficult to recognize that when you are not getting in such a situation it is not just because you are being demanding. It is real, and it is important. In a way, the man’s assurances that he “loves you” or “has never felt this way before” or whatever are a (perhaps unintentional) manipulative tactic to keep the woman from insisting on not being miserable.
Real love is not just about the frisson in your heart or your stomach or any other body part. It’s also about being compatible, and being willing to make yourself compatible. Love is a verb; it’s something you have to do with someone, not just something you feel from afar while you are playing video games or dating other girls. If someone can’t or won’t be in the relationship that you really need, it doesn’t matter how “into you” they are. However strong their feelings are in the abstract, they are not loving you in the way you need to be loved, and that’s what matters.
//after a certain period of time together, all of us have a right to demand that our lovers either choose us or leave us.//
I think it should be “choose us or release us,” personally. :)
So I have never exactly been in this situation before, but I have given an ultimatum before and I feel like I regret it a little. I was in a relatonship for around eight months with a wonderful woman. Her family also absoltely adored me which just made the whole thing better. For the first time in my life I thought maybe I have a futre with this person. But around eight months I began to notice that something seemed to be really bothering my girl friend. I asked her about what it was and all she would tell me was she had some big secret that she wouldn’t tell anyone. Natrally I was distressed and concerned. After several weeks I still didn’t know what was bothering her and what ever was seemed to be effecting our sex life, and the rest of the relationship. I eventally told her that if I was going to stay in the relationship I needed to know what was going on or she needed to at the very least discuss it with her therapist. I was pretty harsh at the time. And I think I could have given her more time to trust me. I’m not saying that ultimatums are terrible and should never be used, but if Ruth does decide to take such a course I think she should proceed with caution and tenderness.
Reading Ruth’s letter, it isn’t clear what she wants. She said “take it to the next level” and “be in a committed relationship”. Hugo used the words “enduring commitment.” So it isn’t clear to me what Ruth is asking for. Maybe “taking it to the next level” means a commitment to monogamy for right now. Maybe it means living together, maybe it means getting married.
I agree with Emily about providing clear information and terms, rather than levying an ultimatum in the hope of forcing him to do what you want. I think an ultimatum is much more likely to foster regret if he doesn’t react the way you hoped. A clear statement of how you feel and what you can live with doesn’t necessarily require the type of certainty that Hugo is skeptical of, it does a certain some inner resolve. Grief may be unavoidable, but you want to avoid remorse.
Great comment, Emily.
Hugo, I’m not following your post. If we become certain as a result of action, then you’re encouraging action as a means of testing certainty. That’s a recipe for disaster - so you go ahead and get married and THEN find out you’re not certain? Oy.
Ultimatums (sorry - it’s English) are not any better. Putting forth as logical consequences, as Emily does, is quite different: but an ultimatum is a threat. Essentially, it’s emotional blackmail. And there are few more sure ways of getting a heartbreaking result than to have somebody cave in to you based on an impulsive fear of losing you.
I think much of the impact of ultimatums is derived from how they’re presented. Saying simply, “I can’t keep going happily in a relationship where you see other women, and so you’re going to have to make a decision,” is very different from yelling, insulting, and using emotionally loaded language to try and manipulate someone into doing what you want. Never issue an ultimatum unless the second option is also tolerable.
I wonder with some of these things whether or not it can be reasonable to say you’re “not ready”. By way of example, some of my friends are getting engaged and planning their weddings, and older people around them are saying “You’re not ready! You haven’t spent any time in the real world to know what really matters most to you, how can you be ready to get married?”
Hugo, it’s interesting that you preach ‘making decisions’ but have gone back on three of the big commitments you’ve made. It may have been the right thing to do, but wouldn’t it be even better, for some other youth in a similar situation, to not make that commitment? Couldn’t someone else like that really be ‘not ready’?
Lisa, I think that’s a valid point. While I don’t always subscribe to the post hoc ergo propter hoc model of human growth, I do tend to think that whatever success I enjoy in marriage now is as much because of (rather than in spite of) my past experiences.
Nut in the end, one learns to ride a bike by riding a bike. And one learns how to be married by being married. Some learn this the first time around; some of us need more seasoning.
I also agree that an ultimatum needs to be presented calmly, rationally, and clearly. But I also think that folks often need to be given forced choices, particularly when one partner is reluctant to make a decision after a prolonged period of time.
“And one learns how to be married by being married.” Hugo, that’s a good point. I wonder though if we can accommodate our expectations to that going into LTRs and marriages. We don’t generally go into marriage expecting it to be a starter marriage, whether that’s the reality that comes to pass.
“But I also think that folks often need to be given forced choices, particularly when one partner is reluctant to make a decision after a prolonged period of time.” The “old tomato” ought to be an expression of one’s own desires and needs, not an expectation on anyone else. Appearing “reluctant to make a decision” may in fact be a decision in and of itself, if the status quo is what that one partner is perfectly copasetic with. They may not see a decision to be made at all. Where an ultimatum comes in, its because the delivering party wants something more, and thus the recipient can either agree, contingent on whatever desires and needs they themselves would have over the course of an LTR, or they can walk.
“All of us are deserving of being chosen, and, after a certain period of time together, all of us have a right to demand that our lovers either choose us or leave us.” That statement had me scratching my head a bit though. I agree with the second part wholeheartedly, that anyone has the right to demand either monogamous LTR or marriage or whatever else their dreams are of a relationship or else break-up. The first part (”All of us deserve of being chosen”) seemed a little Hallmark Channel. Doesn’t that somewhat depend on where we are with ourselves, and what we’re asking or looking for? I can think of a least a few people that I know intimately who are pretty personally screwed up, on the drugs or in other ways, and who constantly look for a lifeline or a codependent or something in one inadvisable relationship or another. (What was that Tori Amos line, something about “looking for a savior beneath dirty sheets”?) I wouldn’t say that they deserve anyone (and certainly no one deserves them!), at least not unless they ever get their own ship trimmed out.
I don’t think, Tom, each of us is entitled to be chosen — I use “deserves” in a narrow sense, meaning that each of us who is partnered deserves a partner who is unambivalent about being with us.
That same summer (1992) that I was leaving my wife, I listened to Tori Amos’s “Little Earthquakes” over and over again, btw.
Hugo and Tom
I think there is an argument for thinking that as human beings we all ‘deserve’ to be chosen, but wether or not we act on that and start faciltating our selection is another matter.
Tom: “that renegotiation and reevaluation are always possible and shouldn’t necessarily require burning all bridges, would make commitment and the acceptance of ultimata, answering “yes-no” to questions that might need a “maybe” or a “for right now”, more palatable.”
I agree with this whole heartedly. Part of the problem is the implicit finality of the decision. If it were understood that relationships are fluid and changing in various directions, not just the supposed “forward,” making those decisions would be much less scary.
I think that long-term, committed relationships rest on both feelings and timing. I have been in a few intense, very serious, relationship that could possibly have lead to marriage. However, for one or the other of us, the timing was completely off. One example is of a man I was dating when I was 24. He was 29 and finishing his Ph.D. For him the timing was perfect. I on the other hand was still growing personally, still changing and off to live in Japan. I knew that I what I wanted was a life changing experience and I wanted to have it alone.
Hugo: Your idea that certainly comes with making a decision in the face of doubt sounds like how people deal with cognitive dissonance as discussed in “Mistakes were made but not by me.”
I forgot to add:
Decisions should be talked about and made. Part of a relationship is understanding the other person’s position. Talk about why he is not ready. If he won’t talk about, perhaps it is not a good basis for a long-term, committed relationship.
If anyone were to give me an ultimatum, in 98% of the cases I would choose against the person giving the ultimatum because giving it is a way of communicating that my needs are more important than yours and I am not willing to even consider yours. Sometimes they are and sometimes they ought to be. Sometimes ending the relationship is a good thing. In which case, the ultimatum is a good idea.
I can understand a person not being sure if another person is “the one,” but I also believe that ALL dating should be exclusive. It wasn’t until recently that I learned that many people actually date more than one person in the same period of time, casually announcing that they have a date with X on Wednesday, Y on Friday, and Z on Saturday. The way I see it, you should already be a little in love with someone before you go out with him/her the first time, and so you should be more selective than that. It’s not like test-driving seven cars in two weeks. These are human beings, not items at a salad bar.
bmmg, not to sound like I’m trivializing your opinion, but that sounds like grade-school kids saying “You can’t be Mike’s friend if you’re MY friend because you and I are best friends!” If I have more than one friend, am I not selective? Does hanging out with X for a movie mean that if I see friend Y for coffee, that I value Y no more than a tub of bacon bits?
I tend to take the Miss Manners approach; the whole point of dating is that you haven’t decided you want to spend your life with that person. If you get to the point that you can’t stand to share them romantically with others, you should be thinking about marriage. Monogamous dating also, IMO, just encourages infidelity and game-playing.
Hugo, not getting the bike-riding analogy. Bike riding is a learned physical skill. You’re arguing that nobody can learn how to be a good spouse before they marry. Is that really what you’re saying?
Mythago, people can learn skills that will help them be good spouses, yes. But marriage presents unique challenges, I believe, and some of those challenges will be unexpected to the point of being impossible to prepare for. Only by going through them can you learn how to go through them.
I tend to take the Miss Manners approach; the whole point of dating is that you haven’t decided you want to spend your life with that person. If you get to the point that you can’t stand to share them romantically with others, you should be thinking about marriage. Monogamous dating also, IMO, just encourages infidelity and game-playing.
I agree with the first half of that but not the second - monogamous dating is definitely necessary to get past that hump where you start falling for someone but haven’t willingly acknowledged their faults yet and examined if those faults are ones that work with yours.
I see the timeline a little like this - casual dating: maybe seeing other people, maybe not, but not making any commitment yet - just seeing if there’s something there that you like. Which, if there is, leads to a monogamous relationship - now that I know there’s something I like and want to explore more, do they really work for me? Once we’ve had our first fight, and started getting more comfortable, and learn how the other deals with money and whether they want kids and their deep goals in life - are they someone I still want to spend my life with? And then, that leads to a “yes” to getting married or “no - not a good idea.”
Just because you can’t stand the idea of them being with someone else doesn’t mean you’re a well-matched couple for marriage.
But, eh, everyone probably sees it differently. I think a monogamous relationship is a healthy thing, even if it doesn’t lead to marriage, as long as it’s being used to make sure the relationship is marriage material.
Hugo, saying “you don’t know until you been there” is very different from what you’re doing - enthusiastically insisting people with doubts jump in, because it’s the only way to find out if they’re wrong. Often in error but never in doubt may be a clever family motto, but it leads to a lot of heartbreak.
B., I’m not sure why monogamous dating is ‘necessary’ for any of that - although I agree that desperation (”I can’t be without him for a minute!” of the infatuated variety is a bad reason to marry. Monogamy isn’t unhealthy, but what I’m talking about is bmmg’s insistence that you shouldn’t date more than one person at a time because otherwise you don’t really care about them. I’ve seen too many people who treat dating like high schoolers, where after a certain number of dates you ‘go steady’. Isn’t the point of dating to see many people? Otherwise it’s just marriage with less financial consequences and paperwork.
“bmmg, not to sound like I’m trivializing your opinion, but that sounds like grade-school kids saying ‘You can’t be Mike’s friend if you’re MY friend because you and I are best friends!’ If I have more than one friend, am I not selective?”
Not at all! Because you can have many, many friends, but we’re only supposed to have one romantic partner at a time (if we have any at all) — unless, of course, we’re swingers.
“I tend to take the Miss Manners approach; the whole point of dating is that you haven’t decided you want to spend your life with that person.”
Of course you’re not ready to MARRY the person, but you can stick with one person at a time, at the very least, until (and if) you realize that it’s just not meant to be. THEN you can consider whom else you may wish to go out with.
“I’ve seen too many people who treat dating like high schoolers, where after a certain number of dates you ‘go steady’.”
Perhaps those high-schoolers have the right idea, then, and it’s only those uberexperienced adults who’ve become so jaded that they emulate TV’s THE BACHELOR, casually going out with (and even becoming “affectionate” with!) a few dozen people simultaneously, and later whittling the list down like it’s the Scripps-Howard Spelling Bee.
“Isn’t the point of dating to see many people?”
I don’t believe that it is, no. When I explain to people that I’ve really not dated much throughout life, they sometimes advise me to do just that. When I explain that you kind of need another person to do that, they might begin throwing out suggestions or offering a “set-up.” But I’ve always been led to believe (and have seen it happen with others) that the spark part comes first, and then one person (whether a “he” or a “she”) asks the other one out.
If you wish to learn more about a person, you can go out with a group of people that includes that person, like a circle of friends with maybe a new person invited along. Or you can even go out one-on-one. But if you’re just learning about the other person, it’s just two people going out. A DATE is something a little more.
Mythago, I certainly don’t counsel leaping in impulsively. After all, Ruth’s guy has been seeing her since October. If she wrote that she had been seeing him since Memorial Day, I’d say she could afford to wait before hitting him with a clear, kind, but firm ultimatum. But after nine months? As an old friend of mine used to say, “It’s time to step up and pat the pony, or go to the rodeo down the road.”
I just wanted to say on certainty in decisions and impulsivity that people and relationships move very much at their own speeds and by their own logic, enough so that it’s probably a dead end ascribing hard and fast rules about what will work and how it will work, and what won’t. My grandparents knew each other all of 11 days before they got married I think, and stayed married for 55 years and through 6 kids until my grandpa passed. Granted, he was going to war at the time and might not have come back, and my grandmother wanted very badly to get away from her family. The point is though that there are no guarantees one way or the other.
I think the point of dating is different for everybody. I certainly think that anyone who marries their very first boyfriend/girlfriend after never having dated anyone else is missing out and is likely not truly aware of what they’re choosing - the people I know who have done it have said things that sound like, “Well, we’ve been together this long, might as well just do it ’cause we’re obligated to each other after all this time” rather than, “I choose this person because I’ve seen that they’re best for me.”
I think there’s a difference between a date and a boyfriend/girlfriend - different levels of obligations, duties, commitment, etc. I personally wouldn’t date more than one person at once - mostly because it’s a heck of a lot of work juggling them and it wore me out the time I tried. I wouldn’t expect someone to be exclusive with me during the initial phase. Exclusivity happens after we decide we’re each worth shutting out other choices for.
As far as whether you need a monogamous relationship in order to answer the big questions - at least for me, I think it’s definitely ‘yes’. It’s difficult to open up to someone when I know they’re seeing someone else. And would you even entertain the big questions if you weren’t sure the other person was serious about you? I see a monogamous relationship the way a lot of people seem to see marriage - it’s a way to say, “I take us seriously.”
But like I said - everyone likely has their own ideas and meanings, which makes dating even harder when you’re trying to swim through it all!
I just wanted to say on certainty in decisions and impulsivity that people and relationships move very much at their own speeds and by their own logic…The point is though that there are no guarantees one way or the other.”
I agree with Tom. I think part of the problem is that people tend to jump right into the dating pool too quickly without really taking the time to find out if they’re compatible with each other. They get lost in the “maybes” and “what ifs” often ignoring the bigger picture. While this is not a bad thing, it’s not necessarily a good thing either. It’s not good to get into a relationship based solely on raw emotion, common ground needs to be met, their has to be a stronger bond that holds two people together and a loyalty to that bond. The problem with casual dating is that it’s fickle and everything is sort of “up in the air”…until… until it just isn’t and both people reach an understanding. Finding someone whose is on the exact same people as you are is found through trial and error. But if we can ease our expectations just a little and forget just for a second that we are dating this person for the purpose of finding out if they’re in it for the long haul, we might just be pleasantly suprised. Getting to know someone is a gradual process and nothing should ever be rushed or forced to be something its not.
If Ruth is unhappy she should just “let it be” and move on. Pushing and probing will only aggravate the situation and if it’s urgent, it’ll work itself out.
“If Ruth is unhappy she should just “let it be” and move on. Pushing and probing will only aggravate the situation and if it’s urgent, it’ll work itself out.”
I agree with G with the part of ‘let it be’ and move on, but I still think that some kind of ‘ultimatum’ is necessary.
For me personally, I will find myself hard to move on if there are no clarity at all. I bet there will be questions in my mind, ‘Is it the right choice??’ And I bet in few weeks I’ll get back in a position that makes me unhappy again.
Plus it is not ‘ethical’ if you consider about the other side. It is like keeping him/her in the dark about our decision or what cause us to decide that way. How can you truly move on n try to find someone else that more compatible with u without feeling guilty in that condition??
So I think some kind of ‘ultimatum’ or discussion is REALLY necessary. You can move on more lightly if all the cards are on the table (all false expectation, disappointment, compatibility matters, etc). That way u don’t have to look back and continue to keep that false expectation alive.
And Capella said something about expectation, ‘If someone can’t or won’t be in the relationship that you really need, it doesn’t matter how “into you” they are. However strong their feelings are in the abstract, they are not loving you in the way you need to be loved, and that’s what matters.’ I really agree with it. Expectation is something that subtle but powerful. If u have certain expectation about someone or expectation about how you want your significant others to be, n someone you’re with cannot or not willing to fulfill that it is either u let go of that expectation or find somebody else that could n would, but don’t do nothing about it. Expectation is dangerous. Expectation is poisonous if not deal carefully.
N there is no way better than n a simple ‘clarity’ of where you both standing right now to control something called ‘expectation’
Nine months may seem like forever to you, or to Ruth. To her SO, it may seem like the blink of an eye. And there isn’t much context as to those nine months; if they’ve been living together, seeing each other nonstop, that’s different than if it’s a long-distance relationship or see each other once or twice a week. Arbitrary timetables do create problems - OMFG! who cares if we’re ready, it’s been nine months!
That’s a tautology: we’re supposed to have only one romantic partner because….we’re supposed to have only one romantic partner? And no, I don’t think “going steady” and the drama of “should I go out with Bob when I really like Joe” is a good model for grown-ups.
Arbitrary timetables do create problems
Certainly. Although, Hugo’s post doesn’t suggest an arbitrary one (and I may be projecting my own story onto Ruth’s, for which I apologize if I am) but rather one driven by a person’s needs. And that’s where the ultimatum comes in - finding out whether that other person’s needs match your own. Maybe they will, and maybe they won’t, but you won’t find out unless you ask. Once you find out, you might decide that your needs are too different to continue the relationship, or maybe you’ll find out that although their needs are different from your own, they’re something that you can work with (maybe Ruth’s boyfriend will TELL her 9 months seemed like a blink of an eye to him, and then she’ll have more understanding of his position and feel like she’s okay with continuing things as they are).
“Ultimatum” is such a loaded word and I really hate it because it DOES bring to mind a temper-laced, “Choose me right this second or I walk” sort of conversation.
B.: “But like I said - everyone likely has their own ideas and meanings, which makes dating even harder when you’re trying to swim through it all!”
I used to fret that I was the only one who didn’t understand the difference between “going out” and “dating,” or when two people officially become a couple, or whatever. But I learned over time that there IS no solid answer to any of these. Many people with far more romantic experience than I have said that they’re really not sure, either.
mythago: “That’s a tautology: we’re supposed to have only one romantic partner because….we’re supposed to have only one romantic partner?”
I don’t see how it’s a tautology. Almost half of all THREE’S COMPANY episodes seemed to center on someone having scheduled two dates for one night, and bouncing back and forth between them surreptitiously, for fear that one of them might find out.
“And no, I don’t think ‘going steady’ and the drama of ’should I go out with Bob when I really like Joe’ is a good model for grown-ups.”
I think it’s a better model than (what some may call) the avaricious tendency to work your way randomly through the little black book, but then I also identify with 11-year-olds (in a healthy way, I mean) far more often than I do with “adults.”
I’m sorry, but you really just lost me there. We’re only supposed to have one romantic partner because….there were a lot of “Three’s Company” skits based on that concept?
There’s a lot of room between junior-high level aping of monogamous marriage on the one hand, and putting notches on the bedpost for the sake of ego on the other.
It’s not “aping of marriage.” Perhaps you think I’m implying that a person should only have one romantic partner THROUGHOUT LIFE. I’m merely saying that you should keep it to one AT A TIME.
I don’t know; I neither see monogamy as something you’d only do if the dating’s gotten to the stage where marriage is imminent, nor as something that should be understood from the first date. Some people only feel a spark for one person at a time - fine, then only date one at a time, since it doesn’t make sense to go out of your way to date people you don’t feel a spark for, in addition to the one you do. But, given that “dating” can mean anything from coffee dates to intense love affairs, it seems a bit odd to me to say that there’s no point in the process that you might still be seeing more than one person. Even a lot of people who never sleep with more than one person at a time still flirt with more than one person at a time while they’re making up their minds.
On the other hand, since marriage does involve lots of financial and legal entitlements that seeing only one person doesn’t, and since a fair number of people reach a point of wanting to see only each other without feeling ready for financial entanglement, monogamy as its own stage in the process, as B sees it, makes sense to me.
Okay, and again, any reason for that other than “because you’re supposed to”? If you were a lot older than me, I guess it would be “because I said so”. You really seem to think that the only alternative to monogamous dating is selfish, random sex with people one doesn’t care about.
Please understand I’m not saying it’s wrong to date monogamously, if that’s what a person wants (and given the cultural expectations, it’s wise to be clear with dates if you’re *not* seeing them exclusively). But seeing only one person at a time as part of a romantic arc isn’t dating; it’s courting.
It goes back to what I said: different people view things differently. I know others who feel the same way I do about dating — and I mean people who actually HAVE dated a good number of people — and it wasn’t until a few years ago that I learned that not everybody does it that way. Each school of thought has plenty of students.
I remember, a few years back, lamenting the fact that others seem to have found love a hundred times while the rest of us never finding it, when a friend kindly explained, “the ones who find it a hundred times — it isn’t really love.”