Dear MonaD:

You are very welcome. I will respond to his words part by part:

“I don’t know what to say.. I see how you tried to defend my purpose and how you voiced yours with equal respect.. Maybe they’re right.. I have to think on this”-

– here he reads like a very reasonable, logical, intelligent man who is also empathetic, respectful and honest.

“The fact is that I do love my brother, and he does need me more than you do”- if he means that his brother needs him financially more than you do, he may very well be correct. But remove the financial factor, it may be that you need him more than his brother needs him. He doesn’t consider the latter, he is blind to your need of him.

“I have been open and communicative with you from the start. It hasn’t gone anywhere. Our communication skills haven’t suffered… I feel like I explained that pretty well when I said that it’s not us, or our relationship that needs help, but it’s my brother. That I am putting us on hold while I help him out”-

– yes, he has been open and communicative except that in his mind your feelings and needs are irrelevant to his choice: “I explained.. that it’s not us, or our relationship“- it is not fair for him to explain to you that his choice which affects you significantly, is not about you. You are not a third party to his choice, you are a second party to a relationship between two people, one of two that make an “us” and an “our”.

“it honestly has nothing to do with us. It’s between my brother and I”- there is a term to his thinking here: convenient thinking. It is convenient for him to decide that his choice to severely limit his communication with you, all the way to breaking it altogether for a while, is between him and his brother.

“That’s why we had to take a break, so I could focus on him.. So I can put my attention where it is needed, not where it is wanted on my part”- not where it is wanted-  he means to say that he doesn’t want to put his attention with his brother? Not true, he very much wants to be there for his brother, this is why he is there.

“I feel like you missed what I intended and took it way too personally“- an intimate relationship between two people is very personal.

“I had to put both hands here on my brother’s rope to keep my brother from drowning, because he was being carried into the ocean… It’s like I put you down on the ground for a second to save someone from falling off of a building and you got upset about it. It actually makes me pretty upset”-

– if his brother (or any person) really was carried into the ocean.. or just about to fall off of a building, of course you would be okay with him not paying attention to you for a few seconds, or minutes, so to save the life of another person. These are impressive and convincing visuals, no wonder these visuals made him “pretty upset”. But these are imagined visuals, not the reality of what happened, or is happening.

His brother’s life was not in danger and his brother has other family members where he lives, doesn’t he? Was the financial crisis sudden, having nothing to do with a neglect or irresponsibility toward the business.. I don’t know. But I wonder how one person, your boyfriend (possibly ex boyfriend) can save a business single handedly, in a similar way of saving a person from drowning. What is it that he does that no  other family member is capable of doing?

– I wonder if he discussed these things with you: why is it that his brother’s business is in trouble, why is it that other family members (it being a family business) can’t help the business or won’t, what skills does he have that others members don’t have, and how can it be that he can single handedly save the business, or if he thought.. it was none of your business.

“I love you. I do, but you’re taking this whole thing way too personally”-

– I think he is correct here- he is not taking his relationship with you personally, but you do. And you shouldn’t, because he doesn’t. The intimacy you did share with him was mostly long distance and perhaps it was not that intimate to him.

“I get it, I do.. The only thing I can think of now to even out the stressors is a more permanent solution”- he is a very logic oriented man, looking for solutions. Problem is people are naturally emotional beings where logic is a secondary feature, not primary. Logic should be used, of course, but emotions are valuable factors to consider when using logic. He bypasses the emotions when it is convenient for him to do so.

“I get it”- in a two dimensional (strictly logical), he does. But he doesn’t get it because emotional understanding of most situations is necessary for adequate, correct understanding.

In summary: you can expect him to be empathetic, respectful and intelligent and all the good things as long as it is convenient for him to be these things. When he is inconvenienced, he will put down the relationship and then tell you about it, after the fact, explaining to you why he put down the relationship, as if he was explaining it to a third party who doesn’t have a say in his significant life choices.

anita