Referencing this thread about relationships re the nature of being “into” someone vs being “OK” with someone you are dating, there does seems to be the opinion that low level relationships are not desirable or sustainable, especially from a woman’s perspective.
Why? Why the need for someone to be “into” someone else in order to have a high quality relationship? Why aren’t good sex and good companionship enough for mature adults? Why the disdain (especially female disdain) for low key relationships?
Because they are somehow dishonest. They lack the right amount of meat to make them worth it. And do not forget the dichotomy here: Sexy friends with benefits, and I love you even though you fart in the mornings are two completely different things.
Jeez, I am so glad I’m not out there in the dating world. Razorette and I have been “OK” with each other forever – and frankly, when you get to a certain age, the earth doesn’t move for ya’ quite as often.
There wasn’t much “good companionship” in the referenced thread. The woman was hospitalized & the man didn’t seem all that concerned about it. He could have made a bit of an effort to see her.
The original use of “maybe he’s not that into you” wasn’t about an OK relationship. It was about a man who’d (perhaps) spent a night with a woman but didn’t pursue things further. The concept means there isn’t anything wrong with either the man or the woman. Just–no mutual sparkage. Time to move on.
The man & woman in the thread are college students. (Although age doesn’t guarantee maturity!)
Too many OK relationships (even marriages) have ended when good sex & good companionship were outweighed by TRUE LURVE! And Cupid’s arrow strikes both male & female hearts.
Some people want the “fireworks” love and won’t settle for less. Some people only need companionship. There are all kinds of relationships and all are valid for those who choose to be part of them. Love certainly doesn’t have to play into it if you don’t need it to. Fuck Buddies is enough.
I should have been clearer in stating than I didn’t intend for that specific scenario to be an exact analog of the 'OK" or 'low key" relationship, especially as the GF is not OK with it.
Let’s just say we’re talking about a exclusive or semi-exclusive dating and sexual relationship where people get together once or twice a week to go to dinner, see a show, and spend the night together, but other than that they live separate lives. Why does this have to be seen as such a second class relationship in people’s (especially women’s) minds?
It’s genes, human animals are not meant to co-exist like that. Does it happen? Of course it does. Is it found more often than not in male/female relationships? I would say , not. In my experience, relationships that are like this tend to have one person ending up having “more” feelings for the other than is reciprocated. It’s Nature Astro.
Speaking only for myself, I don’t have the emotional distance required to have or be a “fuck buddy.” For me, sexual intimacy is tied to emotional intimacy, and the attraction that makes me want to get that close to a man (whatever it is) is more than a need for companionship. Simply put, if I’m sleeping with a guy, what I feel for him is more than mere companionship. If mere companionship is the order of the day, then I’m not sleeping with him.
There’s a lot of powerful socialization that tells women that they should be getting an exclusive commitment in return for physical intimacy, regardless of whether they personally believe that it is natural, or right, or whatever. There’s no such thing, generally, for men.
I’m not coming down on the right/wrong, but there is an imbalance in social acceptance.
Look, before I post any further, I need to know: where are we going with this thread? If you’re not really into it, tell me now. I don’t want to devote myself to a discussion I really put myself into if the response is just going to be “lol.” I don’t want to put you on the spot, I’m just saying I’m really into the topic. I just need to know where you’re coming from with this whole thing, y’know?
Humm - well, if we’re not talking about that other thread, where that guy’s level of interest appears to be “complete emotional detachment”, then I have no trouble with your scenario, whatsoever.
In fact I find if a man gets any closer it can be a bit stifling. However, if I was in the hospital and I had an exclusive relationship with someone, I would expect more than total disinterest on his part as to what had put me there. That’s just not worth the time or bother of shaving my legs, frankly.
Because a lot of people want to eventually get married, have kids, and a house on a hill with an oak tree and a tire swing?
If I didn’t want to have kids one day, this type of arrangement would be perfect for me. But I do want kids (at least one). And in my mind, that means having a husband co-parent, too. As far as I know, a weekend lover type of relationship would be difficult if not impossible to maintain within a marriage with kids. That’s why I don’t think I would be satisfied with it now. It’s like, what’s the point?
I wish I could give you a definite answer. Your responses are very important to me. But I was recently devastated by the locking of another thread. I’d be willing to send you some private messages, though.
Word. What you describe, Astro, is not much of a ‘relationship’ because there’s precious little relating going on.
It’s fine if you want to float around the edges of life and never delve into anything deep and meaningful, but to some of us, that kind of situation is deeply unsatisfying.
If you know what it is to share an intellectual and (dare I say) spiritual bond with someone, then the kind of thing you describe is too frothy and insubstantial to be worth bothering with.
You mock. In an actual pending relationship, though. . .well, this is an important conversation.
I’m a chick, FWIW, and I recently found myself in a situation where I was in a relationship with a guy online while committed to someone else (all parties being aware of and okay with this situation). I was looking for friends with benefits. He was looking for undying love and devotion. It didn’t end well, and I think that, had we had the above conversation beforehand, it would’ve saved us both a lot of grief.
For some people, being in a relationship that’s an improper fit is downright unbearable and painful. Moreso than not being in any relationship.
W-ell, speaking only for myself obviously, it’s not that I think the so-called zipless fuck doesn’t have it’s place for some. One-night-stands and fuck-buddy arrangements seem to work quite well for some people, who don’t carry emotional baggage where sex is concerned and who are clear with each other about their expectations, or complete lack thereof. And I’m sure the same people who are able to just get their itch scratched in one scenario can still have “deep and meaningful” relationships in another scenario.
But I can’t make that disconnect. I can’t let someone get that close to me, literally and metaphorically, and be naked with them, literally and metaphorically, without some pretty deep emotional investment on my part. And I’m sure as hell not going to embark on an enterprise that involves deep emotional investment on my part, while knowing there’s no DEI on the guy’s part, and there never will be. Because having such a one-sided relationship with someone else would make me either stupid or masochistic, and I try not to be either.
But my viewpoint is so entrenched that this sentence literally doesn’t make sense to me:
I don’t know how “relationship” and “committed” are being used in this context, because their use here simply doesn’t corrolate to what those terms mean to me.
My last relationship involved pit stops to ensure that we were in fact on the road to marriage. I went along with it because I, like her, just thought “well, that’s what you do when you are in a relationship.”
I guess I still feel that way. I feel obligated to play the role that I’m “supposed” to play. Could be a product of Catholic guilt from my upbringing, who knows.
