May 24, 2017 at 7:40 am #150496
I believe it is possible for you to get clarity of thought-and-emotion, no longer be lost in the forest, “drowning in all the minute details” and “hitting a dead end”.
You will be then able to decide yourself what details are important at any one context, and what details are not important (and therefore do a disservice to effective communication). You will no longer leave it to the listener or the reader to decide which detail matters and which doesn't (“I tend to give too many details.. I don't ever know what might be important and what not.”)
I believe that the reason that you don't know what detail is important and what is not is because there are certain very important Details in your life during those Formative Years of childhood that are too distressing for you to see, rationally and emotionally.
These are those Details, provided by you:
“my parents are together, hand in hand, and I am on the side… like a dog on a leash”
“this is exactly how they behaved – the two of them vs one (me)…”
” …an orphan as the protagonist. When I read those books, I would identify myself with the protagonist… And so I started to distance myself from my parents to the point that my mother still sometimes raises the issue of me treating them as if they were not the closest people that I have on this planet…”
Paraphrasing the above: you grew up feeling like an outsider, less valuable, like a dog on a leash to a couple of humans, like an orphan, alone.
You wrote that you distanced yourself from your parents- a child does that only after being already distanced by the parents repeatedly and for a long time.
In your original post you wrote: “What I hope to find out is a) what are the reasons for my more than weird choice of partners given that I grew up in a totally normal family with NO dysfunctional relationships.”
Well, clearly, being treated as less valuable is dysfunctional enough (in this context, dysfunctional means that your parents hurt you enough to cause you ongoing/chronic problems with mental clarity and relationships) .
So, I pointed to the Details, the trees that need to be seen. Well, you brought them up, you stated them, doesn't it mean that you see them fully? No, it only means you are somewhat aware of them but not adequately. The seeing I am referring to is rational-and-emotional. As a child you felt significant pain which you distracted yourself from, dissociated from best you can so now, you don't even remember what you felt then. Those emotions are way below the surface.
When you wrote that you felt like “a dog on a leash”- that doesn't FEEL much to you now, does it? But as a child, it felt a whole lot.
In a healing process, if you take it on, perhaps in competent, quality psychotherapy, you will unearth those feelings, see with your mind (rational mind) and your heart (emotional mind). What will follow will be mental clarity and functional relationships.
anitaMay 24, 2017 at 5:38 pm #150564
Funny thing, when I first meet a man, I normally get a fairly accurate overall feeling of the individual (and don’t care about the details at all), but then if I like him, if I would like our communication to continue (that is if I do get somewhat attached), then I start looking for signs (aka details) that he might be feeling the same. And so it goes…
Do I understand you correctly that if it had not been for that my parents vs me opposition, then I wouldn’t feel the necessity to see myself as an orphan even though a great majority of good literature (one may also add Victor Hugo or Jules Verne or, something simpler, Nancy Drew, for example) showcase a child or a teenager who goes on to explore the world, find his or her place in it and matures AFTER s/he has lost his or her parents? Even Duck Tales, my favorite Disney cartoon series, features lots of colorful adventures, but ones of the main participants are Hewey, Dewey and Louis – three ducklings growing up with their uncles, not parents.
My parents have told several times that they had such a horror imagining that I would behave like a cousin of mine (throwing tantrums, slamming doors if there was something not to his liking – and I, indeed, would pick up that behavior and start trying it out on my parents after a visit to my aunt and uncle’s), that that was the reason for their strictness in my upbringing. I have long suspected that my parents went a little bit overboard in their preventing me from becoming a spoilt brat.
Indeed, there seems to be such a fine line between not raising up a spoilt kid and a kid who strives for attention.
Also, my mother would hate to read books to me, so my parents found a way out – teach me to read. Besides, the country I lived in was undergoing serious changes at the time, so my parents had to work and earn money (there was one winter when, as my mother says, we survived thanks to the harvest we had on our plot of land in the country – when a monthly salary would only buy 4 pounds of meat or similar). That is why my grandparents, especially my maternal grandmother would be significantly involved in babysitting me. I think I was fine being on my own and being able to entertain myself 100% of time starting at the age of 6.
There also seems to be a fine line between upholding one’s high standards regarding men, but, at the same time, not giving anybody the slightest chance or waiting for an “ideal partner”, if you see what I mean.
It may sound strange, but I do slightly feel like a dog on leash even now when I have been living an ocean away from my parents for over ten years now. My mother needs to know that I am alright. She is okay with not having details about what exactly I am doing, but she would love seeing a note from me (even though it is just “I am all right, nothing to report”) every single day. Especially now, with all this technology readily available and not costing anything. I am trying to make it every three or four days, but it is hard – on the one hand, I hate this routine of writing something and hitting the “Send” button EVERY DAY (well, almost every day – I purposefully skip some days, so that she doesn’t get used to it being EVERY DAY), on the other – I know that she is a worrier and appreciates these messages…
Do you believe that if I fix my head, I will start feeling attraction for available men? My main problem with men, now, as I see it, is that for unknown reason, at some physical level, the only men (mostly) that I like, are the ones that have partners. Even before I see the ring on their finger, before I learn that they have partners, they would be the ones I will notice. It is not that the sequence is “he is unavailable, that is why I like him”, it is like “I like him; wait – what? He is unavailable, too???”
And finally, why do you think that guy is still on my mind? I can name at least four like him – unavailable, charismatic, with whom I have had meaningful interaction (that is, with whom there is what to talk about) and with whom I have hugged (in case the physical closeness, the hormones, played their part – and yes, my family are not big huggers, so I may be longing for that physical feeling of holding somebody and being held by somebody), but he is the only one whom I can’t let go. Or is it because I know about his marital troubles and that his marriage is beyond repair and that is why my subconscious mind hopes that he will choose me again and for sure this time? What do you think?
Thanks a lot – this is all really, really helpful!!!
XMay 24, 2017 at 9:04 pm #150612
Will read and reply to your last post tomorrow morning, that is.. about ten hours from now. Take care.
anitaMay 25, 2017 at 6:15 am #150648
If the protagonists in your childhood readings were often orphans, then when you identified with them, it doesn't indicate, necessarily, that you felt like an orphan. It may mean that you identified with aspects of their situation, struggles, victories and what not, that have nothing to do with them being orphans.
But if this is the case, why did you bring this up? Which is my point: too many details hurt effective communication. Excess of details, spilling every thought that crosses your mind with little to no discernment, are in your way of communicating effectively to others.
The title of your thread is “Need Help Understanding Why”- my point in my last post to you is that understanding takes not only logic, but emotion. Your logical understanding has power (outside academic pursuits) only if there is emotion behind it.
Your last line is: “this is all really, really helpful!!!”- how has our communication on this thread, so far, being helpful to you?
anitaMay 25, 2017 at 10:26 am #150670
X…I think you are trying to change the world from what it is to how you think it should be. In doing so it is difficult to see the world as it truly is and that robs you of the many opportunities of many wonderful things life offers.
Re: your relationships with men. You have said that you have said that you have “requirements” for the men you would like to be involved with. I want to propose a theoretical situation to you as I am interested in your answer. Suppose that you were born blind. In your being blind for life, you met a man who truly cared for you. This man shows you a lot of love and affection. He is emotionally available to you. As a blind adult you respond in kind, thinking this is the man I want to marry. Now imagine, that for some reason, you gain complete sign, 20/20 vision. In this new blessing, of being able toes for the first time, what if this man did not meet your physical requirements, that you found him to be not attractive according to your requirements. The question I would like you to ponder is this; would you love him still?May 25, 2017 at 10:45 pm #150730
I brought this up because I didn’t know whether this may be the reason for my distancing from my parents. My mother would say that I started to distance from my parents myself. That is that I myself was the starting point. You suggested that this may be the consequence of how my parents behaved – that I felt that way and then found a perfectly valid reason to be “distant” – i.e. I am different, not like them.
But it sure felt like being an orphan made the success achieved later more valuable. It sure is one thing to do well in life when one’s parents have laid the foundation (education, maybe some starting capital, etc.) and another to do well when one had nothing in the beginning. Zero.
I wrote that this communication was helpful because you pointed out some bigger chunks of the picture, groves of trees, if you will. But again, I don’t know if my understanding is right. It is ALWAYS easier to see when one is not the party involved (and I am involved by default), that is why I thought I needed to be as objective as I possibly could, providing all the details I know.
Sometimes, I see in your posts to others how you dissect this or that phrase given by somebody (even by the author) and construct something based on what particular words were used.
I am sorry if I misread your last post (even though I read it several times), but even if I reread it now, I only see your recommendation is to unearth and process the emotions I felt in the past, not something related to the emotions I feel at present.
I have already become aware that I need to pay more attention to my emotions, not solely base my perception of somebody on his or her actions or words, but on the overall vibes that I get from them. And I try to implement it when dealing with people and situations.
I don’t normally spill everything to everybody. I did it only within the framework of this forum hoping to get some insights from people who are not in any way emotionally involved with me. Which I have.
Even if it is not the “objective truth” (which may not even exist), there is such a form of therapy as writing a diary. So even if this is it, it is helpful and beneficial, helps to process (I am only speaking for myself).
May I ask why you bypassed my other questions?
XMay 25, 2017 at 11:13 pm #150732
Thank you for your input!
Yes, I am only too aware of my struggles to control! I AM learning to release, to relax and let go. My life is not that bad at all, and I am really grateful for it, but at this stage I am trying to understand why things are the way they are. I HOPE later on to find out what I can do to improve them. The pursuit of happiness, you know 🙂
When you wrote that I had requirements for men, did you mean appearance, education, bank account…? Because this is NOT what I meant. The only time when I used that word, I used it ironically, looking for something in common that all the men I have been attracted to in the past have. Unavailability is one common feature, so I am trying to understand why it is so.
I may paint a picture of my ideal man, but if I look back at all those men I have ever felt attraction for, they were all different – tall and not tall at all, dark-haired and dark-eyed and red, some seven years older than me and thirty-five, lean and rather overweight, distinguished in their chosen career field and a waiter at a restaurant… So my “ideal” flies out of the window as soon as I meet somebody for whom I do feel attraction.
I fall for charm and charisma, and I am not sure at all that other women would fall for what I find in that particular man. Say, my mother did not understand why I would like this or that actor (for instance) when a teenager.
As for your question, I am not sure I can answer it.
You see, I have witnessed, read about (also in books by psychologists specializing in relationships between men and women) and experienced myself quite a few love stories, and I don’t believe that love is a choice. Trying to maintain the flame, not to let the “flower of love” die by watering it daily – that is a choice (if you call that “love”- fine), but the rest depends on something else – hormones, options, upbringing, examples – everything in a mix. If love were a choice, then why are there so many stories when one meets a good candidate, but can’t make oneself love him or her? Everything is there, but that spark – the spark (whatever you might call it) is missing. Or stories when somebody marries somebody simply because that other person is a “good man/woman” and then doesn’t know what to do with the marriage that feels stale, plain and “why did I marry him/her at all?” And that if the two are lucky and there is not a third person in the picture, the person who appeared BEFORE one of them realized that their marriage is no more. The instinct, the ancient part of the brain that we inherited from the long line of the evolution realized (hence s/he fell for that third person) that something in the union has gone awry, but the human brain has not yet processed it in full.
Yes, sometimes love develops later, but to bet one’s happiness on it (and worse, to hold the other person’s feelings hostage to it if the other person is in love) is not the way to go, in my opinion.
I don’t have any physical requirements at all.
In your situation, the smell of the person, the touch, the voice all would still be there, so yes, I believe that after the initial shock that his face is not quite as I imagined is gone, I would still love him.
It is another story if that love continues to our deathbeds…
XMay 25, 2017 at 11:23 pm #150734
But then “I think” and even “I guarantee” is not a guarantee at all. How many times have you (honestly) thought you would like to do something, but then, when the moment is there, only realized that your heart is not in it? Or, on the contrary, you didn't think that you would like it, but tried nevertheless to discover that this is your new passion? For better or for worse, life is too complex and too many factors are at play in any given time to try and establish some set-in-stone rules.
I have often wondered when holding on to something and going to the very end is an example of one's steadfastness and stability and when it is merely a sign of rigidness and not being flexible? In the end, isn't it the survival of the fittest?May 26, 2017 at 5:57 am #150744
I asked you last how was I helpful to you (at that point I was the only member responding to you on your thread). Your answer was that I “pointed out some bigger chunks of the picture, groves of trees, if you will.”
I found your other answer, in the same post: “Even if it is not the ‘objective truth' (which may not even exist), there is such a form of therapy as writing a diary. So even if this is it, it is helpful and beneficial, helps to process (I am only speaking for myself).”-
Regarding your first answer: as I wrote to you before, you can find answers by the most famous professionals to any question you have. In other words, you can add many more “grove of trees” to your forest any time you choose to visit a library or google.
Your aim seems to be to Add-More-Trees (the more the better), not trusting that there is such a thing as an objective reality, aka a forest, or not caring to see it. My aim is to See-The-Forest. These are two very different and non-congruent aims.
As to your second answer: you are welcome to continue this thread as a diary, as long as it is helpful and beneficial to you.
This is the end of my participation in your thread. I hope other members will find it beneficial to them and will respond to you.
anitaMay 26, 2017 at 9:33 am #150786
Thank you for your participation.
XMay 26, 2017 at 9:40 am #150794
You are welcome, X. Take care as well.
anitaMay 27, 2017 at 10:30 am #150892
Hi X…Your original post fascinates me in that it provoked me to examine myself, and, my self, because I have had past experiences of quite similar interactions with others. Ironically those interactions with others, as I have experienced in the past, have/had a pathology that quite frankly bothered me, yet I was without understanding of them (experiences) at the time, probably due to lack of information afforded to me at the time. I am ALWAYS open to re-examine myself and how I act/react in order to be a better person to (1) me and (2) toward others. It is my personal constitution that keeps me in check. Often times when I get self critical I ask myself, “why did I say/do that?”. Many times, perhaps all too often, the answer I find is very basic, which to me, is not enough. So I keep searching for answers so that I may better understand myself. In doing so, I came across a fascinating read that seemed to instantly, helped me understand my past behaviors. I would like to share with you and others here as well my discovery and hope that it helps you incorporate into your search for answers and understanding. Here is what I found:
Parataxic distortion is a term used
to describe the inclination to skew perceptions of others based on fantasy. The “distortion” is a faulty perception of others, based not on actual experience with the other individual, but on a projected fantasy personality attributed to the individual. For example, when one falls in love, an image of another person as the “perfect match” or “soul mate” can be created when in reality, the other person may not live up to these expectations or embody the imagined traits at all.
The fantasy personality is created in part from past experiences and from expectations as to how the person ‘should be', and is formulated in response to emotional stress. This stress can originate from the formation of a new relationship, or from cognitive dissonance required to maintain an existing relationship. Parataxic distortion serves as an immature cognitive defensive mechanism against this psychological stress and is similar toTransference
Parataxic distortion is difficult to avoid because of the nature of human learning and interaction. Stereotyping of individuals based on social cues and the classification of people into groups is a commonplace cognitive function of the human mind. Such pigeonholing allows for a person to gain a quick, though possibly inaccurate, assessment of an interaction. The cognitive processes employed, however, can have a distorting effect on the clear understanding of individuals. In essence, one can lose the ability to ‘hear the other' through one's own projected beliefs of what the other person is saying.
Distorting one's perception of others can often interfere with interpersonal relationships. In many cases, however, it may be beneficial to do so. Humans are constantly and subconsciously stereotyping. According to Paul Martin Lester, “our brains naturally classify what we see, we can't help but notice the differences in physical attributes between one person and another.”Parataxic distortion runs parallel to stereotyping while it remains in the subconscious. As we make quick judgments, we are drawing from previous experiences stored in our memory.
Parataxic distortion can be a beneficial defense mechanism for the individual, allowing the individual to maintain relationships with others with whom he or she would otherwise be unable to interact or allowing the individual to endure difficult periods in relationships. A self-imposed blindness to certain personality traits can keep a relationship healthy, or it can also prove destructive. For instance, parataxic distortion can keep one in denial of the abusive nature of a spouse.
Distorting one's perception of others can often interfere with interpersonal relationships. In many cases, however, it may be beneficial to do so. Humans are constantly and subconsciously stereotyping. According to Paul Martin Lester, “our brains naturally classify what we see, we can't help but notice the differences in physical attributes between one person and another.”Parataxic distortion runs parallel to stereotyping while it remains in the subconscious. As we make quick judgments, we are drawing from previous experiences stored in our memory. Parataxic distortion can be a beneficial defense mechanism for the individual, allowing the individual to maintain relationships with others with whom he or she would otherwise be unable to interact or allowing the individual to endure difficult periods in relationships. A self-imposed blindness to certain personality traits can keep a relationship healthy, or it can also prove destructive. For instance, parataxic distortion can keep one in denial of the abusive nature of a spouse. Parataxic distortion can be a beneficial defense mechanism for the individual, allowing the individual to maintain relationships with others with whom he or she would otherwise be unable to interact or allowing the individual to endure difficult periods in relationships. A self-imposed blindness to certain personality traits can keep a relationship healthy, or it can also prove destructive. For instance, parataxic distortion can keep one in denial of the abusive nature of a spouse.
Parataxic distortion can begin in the early stages of development in infants. A mother’s nurturing personality and emotional warmth might be projected onto a lover later in life. This could initially generate stronger feelings for the woman than are warranted by her behavior and character alone. This example of attachment theory correlates with Parataxic Distortion.
Attachment theory would have it that the fantasy selves projected onto others in parataxic distortion are informed by our long-term attachment patterns. Not only are these imagined traits the resultant of our earliest bonds and unresolved emotional issues from past relationships, but they are recreated in these fantasy selves for the purpose of recreating that past attachment in the present.
Dealing with current situations or people that relate to a past event, or remind someone of a person from the past, can have negative effects on a human from an emotional standpoint. If the person from the past was a negative figure or the past event had a negative influence on a person, the person may create a self-sense of identity for the new individual they met. The negative emotional response happens when the individual realizes that they have been creating a fake identity for the new individual.
Parataxic distortion is most effective in the realm of interpersonal communication. Parataxic distortion is typically used to avoid coping with past events. For example, if a child is mistreated by his or her father, the child may not only attach the fear and anger towards the father but will also relate this fear and anger to other men that look, talk or act like the father. The human mind keeps track of situations that we have encountered in the past to help us deal with future situations. The unconscious memory, without our knowing, helps us understand and deal with situations in the present that we have dealt with in the past. Parataxic distortion and our unconscious mind make us act the same way in current situations as we did in the past, even without realizing it.
As a defense mechanism, parataxic distortion protects one from the emotional consequences of a past event. A person may not remember a certain event, or be acting on it consciously, but will act a certain way to protect themselves from an outcome with the use of parataxic distortion. This behavior is a pathological attempt to cope with reality by using unreality.
Parataxic distortion is a commonly used psychological defense mechanism. It is not an illness or a disease, but a part of everyday, normal human psychology that can become maladaptive in certain situations. The cognitive abilities used to generate internal models of others are useful in interaction. As we can never truly internalize the full reality of another, we must interact with a shorthand version of them. It's only when we believe that the shorthand version is their reality that this ability can become maladaptive. One may also attempt to coerce or force another to ‘fit the mold' and act more according to expectations, more like the idealized version they dream the other as being. This is also pathological.
However, all humans engage in parataxic distortion to one extent or another, in one realm or another. It may be to manage emotions within their family, to facilitate communication between them and their spouse, or to imagine a relationship between them and their nation-state.
I hope this information serves you well as a vehicle to better understanding that might have an influence on you, and on others as well. It most certainly has grabbed my attention. I want to share with you, too, that had it not been for your original post I would not have had the opportunity to, as I said, re-examine myself, and, my self. So in a way, you have helped me in a way that I find invaluable, so, thank you, from my heart and soul. I hope that others here will find a new way to look at how things affect them. Again, thank you very much.
PearceMay 28, 2017 at 2:05 am #150940
Wow – thank you for your comment! However, I am a bit at a loss as to which my “original post” made such a lasting impression on you. Was it the first one in this thread or the very first one, the one I wrote to laelithia in Getting over infatuation with someone who wasn't real?
Anyway, your excerpt is excellent! It proves at least two ideas that I came across several years ago. I was really surprised by them, but then, the more I thought about them, the more I found them to be true. Slowly but surely, they “sank in.”
Yes, our minds love to have a system, certain structure on which everything else can go. That is why we stereotype incessantly. It just helps our brains to process reality. Accordingly, we stereotype people – and find ourselves wrong (sometimes). Because of this tendency to stereotype, we also tend to look for “signs” where there is a mere coincidence. Do you know that funny premise in physics called entropy? Entropy is basically chaos, absence of whatever system or connection one may think of. Scientists don’t understand fully why it is so, but it seems that entropy is increasing and that entropy, that is chaos, not order, is the basic characteristics of the Universe. So I am very inclined to view everything – including relationships (or, rather, meetings) as a result of pure chance.
Now, why we BECOME attached to certain people and not to others – that is a result of – yes! – our previous experiences, neuron connections in the brain and whatnot. “Love is in the eye of the beholder” – nothing could be closer to the truth. We love others not because of who they are (good or bad, etc. – one can’t FORCE love upon anybody, one can’t MAKE somebody love somebody), we love others because of who WE are, what problems, complexes, etc. WE have.
I tend to fall for unavailable men. What does it tell about me? Where this is coming from? I started unwrapping it all with anita’s help. Some sources also tell me that this is so because I am unavailable myself – like attracts like. So I am working on not being afraid to show my true self, to voice clearly what I like and what I don’t like without thinking what others will think or say about me.
But then here I come to the following question: if we are totally self-sufficient and complete, does that mean that that person will not fall in love? I don’t know. Maybe there is no such person or maybe the idea of 1+1=2 (which is much better than 0.5+0.5=1 – that stupid myth of two “halves” searching for each other) needs to sink further into my psyche.
Or maybe it is a pure maths thing. In the age groups that is of interest to me (35-55), the majority of men are already married but not yet divorced (if what they say is correct and at least 50% of marriages end in divorce).
By the way, do you know what the other numbers consist of? 50% of marriages will end in divorce, 35% will keep bickering and/or living apart but will still be married and ONLY 15% of ALL MARRIAGES are truly healthy and happy unions. Now, that is something to think about.
Interestingly enough, I think I could even list all the unattractive features that my #3 and I had in common. It was as if his features were a projection of mine, but went further, were more pronounced. Still, I do struggle with why I would do anything, examine myself till I get a headache to find out what is going on with me and he would not? Why I would hold on for dear life and he can let go just like that? Again, I read somewhere that this might be so because deep down, I would like (or feel I need) to be more like that – that is my deeply buried desires pull me towards men who are like this, albeit a tad too more than necessary…
I cannot yet resolve yet another question for myself. Why do I fall for unavailable men even BEFORE I know that they are unavailable??? It may be something that my subconsciousness sees, but what the brain doesn’t see yet. I wonder what it is…
In addition to us seeing what we want to see (or are able to based on our experiences), people are multifaceted. Like Shakespeare said, we all play roles. We may behave one way with somebody when we have power over them and totally differently when we are the ones who are dependent on another person. Besides, when we are in love, we are not our true selves, we want to be better, are eager to do anything to please the person we are in love with. So one only deceives oneself when one says that one “knows” him or her. Besides, can we really, truly, say that we know ourselves???
One more idea to think about. Since no two people are alike given their DNA, even clones would be different because experiences in life shape us, too. So when we say to somebody, “I understand how you are feeling,” this is a false statement. We are all endlessly, forever, bound to be alone, to be confined to our own heads and emotions.
I mentioned fear above. Somebody said that everything stemmed from fear. Fear of being alone, fear of failure, fear of the opinion of others, fear of death, fear of the unknown… I am not sure if we can totally overcome fears – that would bring me again to the paragraph about self-sufficiency and completeness.
All in all, if regular doctors sometimes have divergent opinions, this may be even more true of psychologists. Too many theories, too many views, books and specialists, and I don’t have enough expertise to know whom to follow. Besides, I encountered several contradictory thoughts even in those books that I have read and deemed excellent and trustworthy. They say that the teacher comes when the student is ready, maybe I need to find a competent expert whom I will trust and go from there…
Thank you, too!
XOctober 12, 2017 at 12:39 am #172797
Hey there I figured I would read through your posts, So a few of them get back to this one salient question
I cannot yet resolve yet another question for myself. Why do I fall for unavailable men even BEFORE I know that they are unavailable??? It may be something that my subconsciousness sees, but what the brain doesn’t see yet. I wonder what it is…
Have you had any insight?
What if it all revolves around the awareness of the men you run into and the way they act knowing that they have a person that they go home to. There is a certain amount of confidence that married/attached men can have over single men of the same status. I think is entirely different than a confident Alpha male type behavior, with an Alpha male there is a stain of arrogance involved. The unavailable man has a certain level of safety because they know there is someone waiting at home for them, it is a freedom so to speak. Maybe this is the vibe that you are attracted to?
MattOctober 14, 2017 at 6:42 pm #173179
The question still remains unresolved. On the one hand, I am not actively dating around. On the other hand, my work (and hobbies) involve interacting with many men. I have known a lot of them for several years, and I normally know straight away whether I would like to date somebody or not, so even though some of them are free, it is extremely unlikely that I would ever feel anything for them. I meet some men whom I have never seen before now and then, but I don't like that many men that easily, so there simply haven't been many opportunities to verify whether I still fall for men with partners or not, now that some time has passed and I like to think that I have “done my homework.”
I can't stand arrogant men, the Alpha males have never been my cup of tea.
Your insight may be very true in fact. So far I can only name one man whom I sort of like, and who is single (not that he is a good match for me for other reasons). But that man feels so comfortable on his own, enjoying his single life to the fullest and not seeking any relationship (everyone who is single and feels inadequate should learn from him!) that that indeed may be the confirmation of what you wrote and of what I read – I need to be whole and complete on my own in order to have a healthy relationship.
I want to think that I am whole and complete on my own, but so far I don't have the proof of it in the form of a healthy relationship with a man.
But I am okay with that. No problem at all, leading an active life, enjoying the work I do and the hobbies I practise in my spare time.
Can it really be that in the given age group (35-50), there simply are few free whole and complete men? Most men would be married (even if they are whole and complete) and those who don't have a partner, may not be “whole and complete” because of the breakup (met a guy like that, and I liked him – one more proof of it)?