Look, when someone says “it’s not you it’s me” or “I’m not good enough for you” they are basically just being polite.
When someone actually does believe they are not good enough for you, that is a problem. They will constantly be filled with doubt and resentment and eventually they will end up with some loser who makes them feel ok about their lowly status.
Or don’t marry a psychotic whore.
This is a good point. Relationships wherein both parties are challenged a little bit, to be better people, or to be more of who they want to be, are good.
People saying ‘You’re too good for me’ in a negative way are saying they’re not up to the challenge, or don’t want it.
In my experience, as a man who used the line more than once, it’s a manipulative ploy designed to take advantage of a woman’s naivete, generosity, self-loathing, or need to nurture. In any of the cases it’s about getting away with bad behavior while also getting into her pants.
More to the point, they’ve already cheated on you.
I don’t like the whole “good enough” thing because it’s weird to classify someone as better than someone else in my mind, but this falls under the ol Maya Angelou truth: “The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
She expanded on that by saying whether it is showing you or telling you, people give you clues and you should believe them. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but I go with her general idea when it comes to people no matter what my relationship to them.
To me it’s weird not to.
In fact I think it’s disingenuous to pretend not to classify people as better or worse than others. Everyone has traits and characteristics they value in others. If you are untrustworthy. If you are abusive. If you engage in highly criminal activities. I don’t want someone like that in my life. They are not “good enough” for me.
True enough, but a topic for a different thread.
I learned the slow, difficult, painful way that when someone tells me that they’re crazy, I should believe them. “I’m not good enough for you,” works similarly.
The catch is that while the conclusion is usually right, they’ve often got the reasons all wrong. They think they’re not good enough because of a lengthy list of flaws, which may or may not be imaginary. But they’re actually “not good enough for you” because they’ve been keeping that list of flaws – they’re not stable enough to be in a relationship, and anything short of continual reassurance will wreck them completely. (Whereas continual reassurance will just mostly wreck them, much more slowly, and you’ll be going down with the S. S. Dysfunctional Relation-Ship as well.)
Dr. House is abrasive and obnoxious, plus the medical writing on that show was not all that great, but his theories on why people lie, what they lie about, and how to prise real information out of them are actually pretty accurate.
I think for many people it’s not self-doubt, it’s either fishing for compliments or fishing for an escape. Someone who wants me to spend time patting their head “oh yes honey, you sure are!” is someone I don’t have time and energy for. I’m afraid I have about as much nurturing instinct as a rock: I’m good at making sure people are fed, clothed and washed, but not at the feel-good parts. If you need Mommy, call yours.
This, this times 50.
Exactly right. It shows that there is something seriously wrong with the person that disqualifies them from having a relationship with you. It probably isn’t the reason the person is thinking of when the say “I’m not good enough for you”, but if they say this, it is almost certainly true.