posted
We've been going out about a year. She's nice to be physically affectionate with, but I'm finding myself dreading talking to or seeing her. She just seems too superficial to me. Plus, I'm tired of spending money on her and she springs events on me at the last minute.
In fact, one of the biggest things keeping me with her is that it took me a long time to find anyone willing to go out with me. What do you think I should do? Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that anyone here can make that decision for you based on the information you gave.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dreading seeing her is bad. I guess you could ask yourself whether you can fix that somehow: if not, or if it seems like a long shot, you should probably cut it off, on the assumption that she isn't the ONE single person in the world that will go out with you (because believing otherwise would be silly). It's gonna suck, of course.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:but I'm finding myself dreading talking to or seeing her.
this should be a good indicator of what to do.
Maybe not, maybe there are other reasons that are causing this dread. If so, take some time and figure out exactly what it is that is causing it. If it's something that can be worked out, that you can talk to her about, do so. Look at yourself too, and see if the problems are stemming from something you are or aren't doing. If it stems from a fundamental desire to not be with her because of who she is as a person, or how you are together, than it seems the answer would be pretty obvious to me.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really that we have nothing to talk about. I have to feign interest in what she's interested in but she doesn't do the same for me.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: In fact, one of the biggest things keeping me with her is that it took me a long time to find anyone willing to go out with me. What do you think I should do?
End it. From the sounds of it, you'll be doing both of you a favor. Would you want to be with someone because being with you sucked less for them than being alone? I wouldn't. I also wouldn't want to be with someone that I thought so little of.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a slightly related note, there is of course no chance that she will read Hatrack and know this is you right?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
On a slightly related note, there is of course no chance that she will read Hatrack and know this is you right?
No. She reads almost nothing except entertainment magazines (and I haven't read much either lately, but I know I should---I doubt she even thinks she should), so she probably doesn't even know who OSC is.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You're not married. If you don't like being with her anymore, break up.
I don't really like what you're implying, from both ends of the spectrum. On the one hand you seem to be saying that an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't mean as much as a married couple. That a commitment and bond between two people doesn't mean anything until they have a piece of paper that says so. And on the other hand you seem to be saying that the official recognition of marriage trumps all other considerations in a relationship.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm okay with both of those, albeit not to the extreme. In other words, I'm fine with saying that an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't generally mean as much to the couple and especially to society as a married couple's. And I'm fine with saying that the official recognition of marriage should trump many other considerations that might otherwise end a relationship.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Tom said. I mean and believe exactly what you felt I implied, except for the extremes you took it to.
Breaking up a marriage should require more thought than breaking up a non-married relationship, but there are still good reasons.
However, if you're just dating and you find you can't stand the other person, for the love of Pete, break it off. You'll both be happier.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally agree with both Tom and Katharina on every point.
Marriage is a promise to stay together forever (and should be treated as such.) Dating is a try-before-you-buy situation.
If you dread seeing her, dump her. You both have only a certain number of years before "all the good ones are taken" so make them count. Lingering on with a relationship that is going nowhere ill-behooves both of you.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not living with her. Maybe I should have said "dumping", but I thought that would be too crude.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In other words, I'm fine with saying that an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't generally mean as much to the couple and especially to society as a married couple's ...
Its worth adding that the first point is only a statistical observation. Unmarried relationships may mean less on average, but in the specific there are/were a few unmarried couples in my life for whom I have much greater confidence long term than many married couples. For some of them, marriage was practically a road-bump, a technically of registration. As a cluster of outliers, I would also note a great number of couples in California who may no longer be married, and yet whose relationships mean quite a bit to them Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You're not married. If you don't like being with her anymore, break up.
I don't really like what you're implying, from both ends of the spectrum. On the one hand you seem to be saying that an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't mean as much as a married couple. That a commitment and bond between two people doesn't mean anything until they have a piece of paper that says so. And on the other hand you seem to be saying that the official recognition of marriage trumps all other considerations in a relationship.
Marriage is a serious commitment and is also much more likely to involve children. This isn't to say that you shouldn't get out of a bad marriage, but generally speaking, it's a good idea to try to make things work. If a married man told me that he was enjoying their physical relationship but had nothing in common with his wife, I would recommend a variety of options including couples therapy to attempt to reconnect. Possibly, the decision to marry was ill-conceived in the first place but nevertheless, especially if there are children involved, it's good to try to make the decision right, even if they didn't originally make the right decision.
When a person who is dating -- not engaged, no children -- tells me that he likes his physical relationship but has nothing in common with his girlfriend, then it seems simple: Find someone else. The sea isn't out of fish and there's nothing wrong with being single. Think about what kinds of things you are looking for in a girlfriend and try to make a better choice next time.
Staying with someone when you don't see a future is dishonest. She needs the chance to get over you and find someone who is right for her. You need the same thing.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not you decide to leave, it sounds to me like you have to start standing up for yourself in your relationships. I'm not talking about ultimatums, but better communication. She probably doesn't even know why you're unsatisfied. If, once you have the lines of communication open, both parties are making an effort and it's still not working out, then it's time to leave. [Addit: in this situation I wouldn't think any less of you if you leave right away, but of course that's your decision.]
By the way, I really sympathize with the idea that it's hard to find someone to go out with you. I felt that very strongly in my first two relationships, and after those ended it was over 5 years before my next relationship. It gets better, though. Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Staying with someone when you don't see a future is dishonest."
This depends greatly on the communication within the relationship.
It seems very common, though, for dating relationships to include the understanding that "I haven't ruled out a future with you." To the extent that this is the understanding, even if unspoken*, it could be dishonest to continue the relationship if you've already ruled out a future. However, I don't see that Omega has yet done so: he's trying to make that decision now.
There might be a chance that Omega just needs to be very clear about his needs and preferences, and see if the relationship can adjust to make him happy. That's what married people or couples with kids should do before they give up.
However, absent legal or familial entanglements, it might be wiser just to end it and see what else is out there: expecting the other person to change is usually a bad bet, and delaying the not-very-evitable outcome just makes it harder and more painful when you finally get there (speaking from experience).
*(It's too bad that expressly defining the terms of the relationship early on seems icky and unromantic, because I do think not doing so causes problems. My first girlfriend seemed to think that going on more than three dates with her meant I wasn't allowed to ever break up with her, ever, and by the time I figured that out, I hadn't yet figured out how to be honest about my differing view because I didn't want to hurt her feelings, and oh my goodness what a mistake it was to wait 2 years before breaking up.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the posts, you don't really list anything that you have done to try to make the relationship be better. Relationships take a lot of work. If you don't think she is worth that work, then there is your answer. If she is (or just not being single is worth it), then you need to spend some time thinking about how to improve things. What initially drew you to each other? Is there any way you can share in her hobbies? How about yours? Maybe you could come up with some new hobbies both of you would be interested in learning? You could try reading books together and talking about them. Something my husband and I do is sometimes limit conversation- we can spend ten minutes talking about something he is interested in and then he has to be as attentive to me for the next ten minutes. And then his turn to pick a topic. It is a lot easier to actually be interested in something for a short period of time that you know will end then for what could be hours.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "Staying with someone when you don't see a future is dishonest."
This depends greatly on the communication within the relationship.
Agreed. I spoke too hastily and worded it poorly. First, I should have said "when you see no future" (indicating that your mind is made up that there is no future) and second, I should have added that the other person is unaware of this fact. Certainly, with dating, there are all kinds of relationships and for all kinds of reasons. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
It looks to me like it's already over and you're just friends with benefits. Ask yourself what you really want, and if it's fair to you, and to her, and then act, either to break it off or to stay committed to it.
But it sounds like you've already made your decision one way or the other. Somewhere in your head you've either decided to stay with her for the physical benefits, or you've decided to break it off. I think sometimes people overthink things in relationships when their gut reaction is already the culmination of a lot of little judgments and decisions you've already made. What's your gut telling you? And can your head come up with anything big to contradict it?
I'd also be willing to bet a lot of your hesitation hinges on the fear of being single. I know the feeling, and being single can suck if you aren't the type that easily meets people and goes on a lot of dates. I know both kinds of people, and their reactions to the single life are dramatically different. It's a tough decision, despite how obvious it might look from the details you've given. But think long term, and think fairness, if you really don't see this going anywhere, and I can't imagine that you do, do you plan to stay with her to meet your physical wants and so you aren't lonely until you find someone better? Do you really feel right about that?
Forgive any assumptions I might have made that aren't true, but like others have said, there isn't a lot to go on there, so I made some guesses.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, I'm fine with saying that an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't generally mean as much to the couple and especially to society as a married couple's. And I'm fine with saying that the official recognition of marriage should trump many other considerations that might otherwise end a relationship.
I'm sure we've had this conversation before, but I still feel the need to chime in. I've gotten a little more perspective on the matter, I think, and I tend to lean a little more on your side of things than before. But at the same time, I'd like to point out that the convention of marriage is only a label that we human beings put on what are essentially "feelings" in order to classify a state of being that is really a huge ridiculous hodge-podge of emotions, thoughts, and decisions that an individual couple has and makes for and by themselves. Meaning, in a sentence that actually can be parsed, that the state of "coupledom" is really a state of mind that can only be determined by the two people in it, and even then is more an individual experience than anything else (i.e. a connection can be felt by one that supercedes the other's, etc.) So in that sense, I don't agree that "an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't generally mean as much to the couple," depending, of course, by what you mean by "mean."
At the same time, I recognize that by living in a populated world, how others deem the importance/unimportance of a relationship does actually effect the efficacy of that relationship. So i tend to agree that the legal label of "marriage" becomes harder to dissolve than the emotional label of "relationship," because of the weight the concept carries, and despite the fact that there is no real reason why that should be.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So i tend to agree that the legal label of "marriage" becomes harder to dissolve than the emotional label of "relationship," because of the weight the concept carried, and despite the fact that there is no real reason why that should be
One could easily surmise that marriage is a defined commitment to stay together, and generally it's in marriage that children are produced, and that putting barriers in the way of decoupling ensures some sort of familial stability for child rearing and the continued success of society.
That and the fact that it seems as often as not in history, marriage was more a financial arrangement than an emotional one.
It's a concept we've carried through time for thousands of years that has changed constantly from time to time and place to place to fit whatever need we have for it at the time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:...marriage is a defined commitment to stay together
So is "becoming a couple," though we don't have a specific word for that beyond "dating" or "being exclusive" -- I'm sure, though, that I'll want the social weight of a label like "marriage" sometime in my life, whether or not I feel that having that label will change anything in my relationship specifically.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the difference between marriage and unmarried couplage is more like the difference between dating and unmarried couplage. It's three things that might all sound the same but are different. It has to do with levels of commitment and a degree of sacrificing individuality for the sake of the whole, especially in the case of marriage.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So is "becoming a couple," though we don't have a specific word for that beyond "dating" or "being exclusive" -- I'm sure, though, that I'll want the social weight of a label like "marriage" sometime in my life, whether or not I feel that having that label will change anything in my relationship specifically.
"becoming a couple" does not suggest to me the intent of permanence like marriage does.
When you have the option, there's little reason NOT to get married once your commitment level matches the requirements of the institution: if you've found someone you want to be with from then on, then you should get married, so you can have the legal benefits. The marriage doesn't change the relationship, it reflects (and rewards) the commitment of the relationship.
Not taking advantage of the legal benefits suggests to me one of several things:
1) Intentional rebellion against tradition (OK, if that's what you want, but it's not as neutral as not needing the label). 2) Can't, legally. 3) Not ready for THAT much commitment.
I'm sure there are many other reasons, but those seem like the big three to me, in order of increasing prevalence.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think all that I'm arguing is that none of these things is cut-and-dried, aside from legally. We've decided that "marriage" means one thing, and that "dating" means another, and that "unmarried couplage" another. But bottom-line, all those things are is labels, and the concepts are far more personal and unnameable (or currently unnamed) so much so that any one word would not have sufficed for, say, describing my last long-term relationship. Although I think that label is actually fairly appropriate as a general statement, though certainly not indicative of the whole. Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously? If you can talk about her like this online it's probably better for both of you if you're not together. I don't think I'd want to be in a relationship with someone who respected me little enough that he'd say those things about me (albeit behind my back.) And obviously, you're not deeply and abidingly in love with her. End it, hopefully before she hopes it's more serious than it is.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you've found someone you want to be with from then on
I quibble with this because of the impossibility of knowing whether you'll want to be with that one person "from then on," but it's semantical really. Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:...marriage is a defined commitment to stay together
So is "becoming a couple," though we don't have a specific word for that beyond "dating" or "being exclusive"....
"becoming a couple" is defined by society as a commitment that is or may be temporary. You're not available right now. Marriage is (or is supposed to be) a lifelong commitment. You're not available and you're not ever going to be available again so don't ask.
Marriage, to me, is a lot more about a decision and a commitment than about feelings and emotions. The feelings and emotions precede the commitment, but marriage is not a feeling. It's a decision to form a lifelong partnership. Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner - even if he's not "feeling it" right now - is very different than knowing you have a boyfriend who will stick around until he loses the feeling.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with all this is that that is the way marriage is "supposed" to be. But with the divorce rate at 50% can you really look at marriage as "Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner"? To many people in this country, marriage is just something you do, and divorce is just as easy as getting married. The signing of the marriage document doesn't promise commitment. Only you as a person can promise that, with or without the marriage to go along with it.
In a perfect world I'd agree with most of you. That marriage is a decision to make a life long commitment to your partner and have it be recognized in the eyes of our society(whether it be for religious reasons or practical reasons), and thus should have more weight placed on it than a couple who is not married. But given how bastardized the system is I don't think it's fair to make that divide, just like it's not fair to lump all married couples together under one label when each and every individual views their commitment differently.
All that being said, i'm in no way advising for Omega to stay in a relationship that he doesn't want to be in!
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Marriage, to me, is a lot more about a decision and a commitment than about feelings and emotions. The feelings and emotions precede the commitment, but marriage is not a feeling. It's a decision to form a lifelong partnership. Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner - even if he's not "feeling it" right now - is very different than knowing you have a boyfriend who will stick around until he loses the feeling.
Yes, exactly! I was about to post this but you beat me to it.
quote:Originally posted by Strider: The problem with all this is that that is the way marriage is "supposed" to be. But with the divorce rate at 50% can you really look at marriage as "Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner"? To many people in this country, marriage is just something you do, and divorce is just as easy as getting married. The signing of the marriage document doesn't promise commitment. Only you as a person can promise that, with or without the marriage to go along with it.
I completely disagree that the 50% divorce rate means that people think that marriage is just something you do. I'm sure some people feel that way, but having done a little bit of study of the causes of divorce, I would say that most people enter into marriage thinking it is going to be forever. Then, a lot of things go wrong, including the fact that a lot of people go into marriage thinking that it's all about feelings and that the love will last forever. Marriage isn't a fairy tale -- it's hard work.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
