« Previous | Home | Next »

A Wrinkle In Timing

I’m 25, and work in film and TV. Last year was my first year of consistent employment. I’m producing my first documentary, but I still have a long, brutal climb ahead. My girlfriend of a year is extremely pretty, kind, and smart, and has supported me in every aspect of my career. She’s outgoing, great with my friends, and even likes football. In short, she’s awesome. I never thought I’d fear commitment, but I keep finding myself on the verge of breaking up with her (for no good reason, mind you). I know I couldn’t do any better than her. If I were lucky, I’d do just as well. I love her, and I don’t use that word lightly, so why can’t I think rationally about this?

--About To Dump A Keeper

“Fear of Commitment” gets a bad name. Supposedly, you’re a jerk or psychologically stunted if you express reluctance about throwing yourself into a relationship, yet nobody will diss you for, say, “Fear of Strolling Down a Dark Alley Through a Gauntlet of Gang Members.” Or “Fear of Getting on a Plane with a Guy with a Fuse Sticking Out of His Converse.”

Anybody who’s given any thought to the picnic in the park in hell that commitment can be should feel at least a little edgy about it. Committing isn’t saying “We had fun together today. Let’s try to have more fun together tomorrow.” You’re committing to tomorrow, and next Tuesday, and maybe 3,656 Tuesdays from now. The thing is, you can’t promise you’ll keep feeling the same way -- you can only do your best to stick it out after you feel stuck. Bit of a buzzkill, huh? Of course, you want to believe everything will be wunnnderful, sex will only get hotter, and yours is one of those rare, timeless love affairs. But, the truthful answer to “Will you still love me tomorrow?” is something along the lines of “Gee, I dunno.”

Guys, especially, are made to feel bad if they aren’t gung ho to commit, with “Getting Him To ‘I Do’” splashed across every other women’s magazine, and nary a piece on “Letting Him Do What Works For Him.” Men are achievement-oriented, and as a man, you probably have to feel set in who you are and what you do before you can feel ready to settle down with somebody else. And yes, even if that somebody else happens to be a physicist who put herself through MIT as a Victoria’s Secret model, took night school classes from the Dalai Lama, and can cross her legs behind her head while predicting the Super Bowl winner down to a 96 percent accuracy on the point spread.

You’d have it easier if only your girlfriend would go a little bridezilla-to-be on you. But, lucky you, if this girl clamors for a ring, it’ll probably be fried, battered, and onion. So, what do you do when you get what you want and you can’t stop wanting it to go away? Well, you don’t hate on yourself for itching to break up, and “for no good reason.” Not being ready for a relationship is a great reason. If you end it with her, explain that you’re a bit of an unmade bed at the moment, and you need to become somebody before you can become somebody’s boyfriend. Or, in guy terms, there’s a time for giving a girl drawers in your dresser and keys to your place, and a time to buzz in whatsername from Wednesday.

Posted by aalkon at March 5, 2008 12:49 AM

Comments

Naturally, you're on the money, but there's a flaw in his question. How can he be "not ready for a relationship" when he's already in one? I think what he really means is "I'm in a relationship which is heaven on earth but I am voluntarily subjecting myself to some professional hardship which should yield great benefits someday and I'm afraid of the effect this will have on our relationship and I would rather suspend or cancel the relationship while it is all still sweetness and light than risk having it dashed on the rocks of my ambition and oh by the way can I build a time machine and send gf into the future when I run Hollywood"? to which you might reply "Don't think you control the universe. All adults must assess their own risk. Your wonderful gf may expect nothing more than what's reasonable: to love you without reservation and to be willing to share you with your career. It's her decision, not yours, and you don't have to protect her from the consequences of HER decisions."

Posted by: DaveG at March 5, 2008 4:58 AM

Ya know, life is all about risks. You take one, and it goes well, so you take another, and maybe that one bombs. But you never stop taking risks. Emotional risks are arguably the most dangerous, but how do you know how comfortable you really are if you never venture out of your own comfort zone?

I think the LW should just let it be for now, enjoy what he's got, and see where it goes. I mean really, how broken up would he be if she decided to dump him? o_O

Posted by: Flynne [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2008 5:27 AM

I love her, and I don’t use that word lightly, so why can’t I think rationally about this?

Because love isn't rational.

But, if you want rational, do a risk/reward analysis. What do you risk, what do you gain? If the LW really can't do any better, and after a year he should know, then the risk is considerably less than with other options. What does he gain... she’s awesome.

I'm thinking that most of the LW's concern is in losing the great relationship he has now. However, his plan to break-up with the awesome woman will result in just that, he'll lose the great relationship. So, he can either move forward and risk failure or he can proceed with his plan and guarantee failure. One path has a success node, the other does not. How about living with the woman and testing the waters? Or, give me her number...

Posted by: Curly Smith at March 5, 2008 5:56 AM

Maybe he's picking up subtle signals from his girlfriend that she wants to get married. I'm sure she's being very nice and low key, but maybe she's too nice because she has a goal of her own in mind.

Since they've only been going out for a year, he should sit her down and tell her that he would love for them to be dating for the next 5 years, but only dating, not married. See how she reacts to that. At least he'll have put all his cards on the table, and taken the pressure off himself.

Posted by: Chrissy [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2008 6:40 AM

Here's another angle: maybe LW is skeptical of the standards he sees that tell him he should be happy based on what he seems to have in his life.

If you aren't happy, you aren't happy (pretty deep, yes?)

The need for meaning is high on the list of the things that make us tick. He sees a future with lots of nice, shiny objects and a beautiful woman at his side and it looks somehow cold and meaningless to him. Is there something wrong with him? On the contrary; the thinks there is more and he is right.

He should invite ms. "awesome" on a vision quest of his choosing and see how she reacts. If she supports him in looking for deeper meaning, they are in good shape. If she grunts in disgust, time to move on (maturely of course.)

Posted by: martin [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2008 8:06 AM

It's hard to read between the lines here - I suspect Amy had more correspondence with him. From what he wrote, I imagined two possible scenarios:

1. She's great, but he really would rather go sow some wild oats.

2. He is putting the commitment pressure on himself: "I've known her a whole year, why don't we have any grandchildren yet?" In which case, he just needs to whack himself upside the head, and enjoy what he's got...

Posted by: bradley13 at March 5, 2008 8:32 AM

He's at the beginning of his career, he's very young, and met a great girl and isn't ready to settle down, but fell into a relationship with her. He's uncomfortable being in a thing with somebody -- I totally understand. I think, for a lot of people, especially those who spend four or more years in college, the early-to-mid 20's should be the fuck years and the fuck up years, where you don't get saddled down with some relationship.

Posted by: Amy Alkon [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2008 9:12 AM

Flynne, a big part of being in a relationship is readiness to be in one, as Judith Sills wisely discusses in A Fine Romance.

Posted by: Amy Alkon [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2008 9:14 AM

Oh I agree, Amy! I was just thinking that if the LW is happy with the way things are now, why rock the boat? If he's not happy, he needs to sit down with her and discuss how he's feeling about it all. Maybe he'll find out that she feels the same way he does! But as Curly wisely pointed out "Love isn't rational."

Posted by: Flynne [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2008 11:22 AM

"I was just thinking that if the LW is happy with the way things are now, why rock the boat? If he's not happy, he needs to sit down with her and discuss how he's feeling about it all." The impression I'm getting is that he doesn't really know if he's happy. I'm half in that boat now. I'm in a great place and from what I've seen It can get a whole hell of a lot worse and only a little bit better relationship wise.

Then you have that fantasy we all have some where deep down. That person that is an absolute perfect match, which is irrational because they probably don't exist and if the do you have a 1 in a few billion chance of finding them. Will you find this? No not a chance, and you know this by looking for a long time. Neither the LW or I have been here for very long so the lack of experience makes that grass even greener. I have wrestled with this question. I have reached some peace of mind until I smell something close to the fantasy around. Then I go sulk quietly in a corner for a few days and it goes away.

Posted by: vlad [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2008 12:03 PM

Vlad, honey, don't despair! I never thought I would find my perfect match either, and I haven't! But, my current boyfriend is close enough. He loves me, I love him, and we make an effort to make it work. Because, after all, it does take work. If something is worth having it's worth working for. YMMV

Posted by: Flynne [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2008 12:17 PM

I'm confused. If he's happy with her why does he want to break up with her? If he's unhappy with her, why doesn't he break up with her? Why do so many people look at being happy as a problem? Or conversely, why are they afraid to admit that they're unhappy? Who cares if someone's perfect on paper if in reality they just don't do it for you? Or, maybe they're imperfect on paper and no one gets it, but you're happy (real happy, not co-dependent bullshit happy). If he's happy and things are good, stop analyzing the shit out of the relationship and just enjoy it for cripe's sake! If she hasn't started leaving bridal mags around her place and forced him to watch "My Best Friend's Wedding" then he may just be flattering himself that she's looking for more than he's ready for right now. Not all women are looking to win that sprint down the aisle. Jeezly Pete, grow some balls and 'fess up what you want already - to yourself at least. I'm so glad I left the self-induced-drama-heavy 20s behind!

Posted by: AJ at March 5, 2008 2:13 PM

Amy looks at the twenties as the fuck years, and she has a good point. But if it's all sex and no relationships, then how is one to learn how not to screw up when the the real thing comes along in the thirties? As we all know, since there's no such thing as relationship school, we can only learn by trial and error. A series of one-night stands is no preparation for a mature love affair.

Posted by: Pusnboots at March 5, 2008 10:09 PM

P.P.S. As for the case at hand, I agree with most of the other comments -- LW should tell gf about his apprehensions about "getting serious" and see how she reacts. I suspect that she, in all her awesomeness, will understand and possibly feel the same way. Once it's out in the open they can both relax and enjoy the ride.

As we all know, monogamous dating doesn't necessarily have to mean a commitment to anything more than a having a great time together.

Posted by: Pussnboots at March 5, 2008 10:37 PM

P.P.P.S. Sorry about the repetition of "As we all know" -- I got interrupted and was trying to reconstruct a post that got lost and thought that phrase was part of it. My bad.

Posted by: Pussnboots at March 5, 2008 10:43 PM

He seems young and scared. He's picked a tough field to have a career in, which is why he reached the age of 25 before having a full year of consistent employment, and he still has a "long, brutal climb ahead." At least he didn't take the easy way out. He could have several years' worth of wages under his belt if he'd pursued a corporate cube job, but he's following his dream. He deserves congratulations on producing his first documentary, but he's still in a very competitive field and there are no guarantees.

I knew several "fluffybunny" young women in college - and they were all beautiful - who didn't really have to think about what they should major in or what kind of career they wanted. They were scheduled to marry a future investment banker or CPA or whatever, and were never going to have to worry about earning their own financial independence. Hubby was going to start out with a great salary, and by the time she reached her late 20's, she'd be settled down to life as a 7-day white woman in a big house in the suburbs, having babies and spending her days walking them around the neighborhood in strollers.

That kind of woman isn't the right one for this guy. His girlfriend is going to have to be independent and have plans to support herself. She can't expect him to give up his dreams (and the financial insecurity that goes along with them) just because she's thinking about her biological clock.

Posted by: Pirate Jo [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 6, 2008 7:42 AM

Actually, I don't think she was pressuring him -- but that doesn't make a guy any readier.

Posted by: Amy Alkon [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 6, 2008 8:00 AM

Hmm, I guess I am just confused by this guy, then. He keeps going on about how great she is, and she's not pressuring him, and he says he loves her, so he wants to leave ... why?

What exactly does he not like about having her around? It sounds to me like he just isn't all that into her, or all that attracted to her, but he feels like he SHOULD be, but instead he is bored and wants to fool around. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but please dude, quit babbling on about how great she is. If she really IS all that great, you wouldn't want to dump her.

I'm just not sure I buy all that stuff about being 'ready' for a relationship. If you really fall in love with someone, "not being ready for a relationship" isn't going to stand in your way. You're going to get yourself ready and damn fast, so you don't screw up this wonderful thing you've found.

Are there things about this guy's girlfriend that are terribly irritating, but he feels bad about admitting what those things are? I say, if he keeps feeling like he wants to break up with her, he should just do it and quit making things difficult for himself through all this second-guessing. He can focus on his career and go find himself a girlfriend again when he's 40 if that's what he wants.

Posted by: Pirate Jo [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 6, 2008 12:17 PM

I get it -- he's just not in bonding mode.

Posted by: Amy Alkon [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 6, 2008 12:26 PM

I think that on some level we are all 'always' in bonding mode, because our hearts are human and that 'ole chemistry affects us all the same. I still think that if the right girl came along she would sweep him off his feet, and he would figure that out soon enough. I just don't think this girlfriend is the right one, and he should stop thinking that she should be. The one who DOES capture his heart might not even be as pretty as this one or like football, but he ain't going to feel like dumping her, that's for sure.

Maybe I'm just hyper-aware on this issue, because "he's just not in bonding mode" sounds too much like the excuses I used to make for myself in the past. It was never that they weren't ready for a relationship - they just didn't want one with ME. They were either still IN bonding mode over a previous girlfriend, or they got into it with someone else later. But in no instance was the guy against having a girlfriend.

Posted by: Pirate Jo [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 6, 2008 1:00 PM

It sounds to me like he might think he's *expected* to commit, just because he's been with the girl for a year. It seems to be a common assumption that one should settle down - i.e. get hitched or at least move in together - after dating for that length of time. Like AJ said, maybe the girlfriend doesn't expect "commitment". Hell, maybe she'd run a mile if he offered it - I know I would.

Posted by: Spacey at March 6, 2008 2:31 PM

Maybe he is one of those people that doesn't think they deserve to be happy, or have nice things. Therefore they sabotage the good things in their lives.

Posted by: Ladyleo at March 6, 2008 6:01 PM

"I think that on some level we are all 'always' in bonding mode, because our hearts are human and that 'ole chemistry affects us all the same." - PJ

"Maybe he is one of those people that doesn't think they deserve to be happy, or have nice things." - LLeo -

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I give you Exhibits A and B in the case of Man v. Woman.

Seriously, he just wants to be free. No need to overthink it.

Posted by: snakeman99 at March 7, 2008 8:47 AM

Hey I'm the same as this dude that wrote the letter to Amy. I had Mr.Perfect/Right and it ended. It was tough, and I do miss him at times but I just am not ready. I just want my Christian Louboutins and any other commitment (aside from my job, rent) makes me tremble at the knees with despair. Even if I like somebody I dont want to commit to them. I see my "boyfriend" for sex and sleep and that's how the majority of my "relationships" have worked. I do want a husband in the future when I know who I am.

Posted by: PurplePen [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 7, 2008 11:44 PM

Oh and before anyone tags it as fear of actual relationships, I do have very very close friends. I'm pretty commited to them and have had them for years.

Posted by: PurplePen at March 7, 2008 11:47 PM

Thanks, Purple. I don't know why people can't get that this is a feeling, and a legit one, people have at certain times in their lives, especially the early 20s. I certainly had that feeling in my 20's. I wanted to believe I wanted a boyfriend, but I didn't feel ready to connect with anybody on a deep level because I hadn't figured out my own life, so I really just wanted to fool around.

Can you describe more of how you feel and why you think you might feel that way?

Posted by: Amy Alkon [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 8, 2008 12:06 AM

Sometimes, it's not about the girl. Commitment, in itself, has disadvantages. Perhaps this girl is worthy of a commitment, if the LW was seeking to commit. I like Amy's phrasing, "He's not in bonding mode."

Posted by: Jeff at March 8, 2008 5:34 AM

Thanks, Jeff. I'm having a hard time understanding why this is so hard for people to grasp.

Posted by: Amy Alkon [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 8, 2008 7:25 AM

I enjoy just enjoying my emotions when I'm with a guy that I like. I don't see any advantage to commitment, so I don't seek it in any of my relationships (friends, boss, acquaintances, etc.). As long as I feel happy in a person's company, I will continue to repeat the experience of being with them. When I don't feel it anymore, I will drift away from them.

I get the sense that men are more pragmatic in their approach to relationships, in that the relationship has to serve a particular practical function for them. Since I have no interest in being an 'employee' of some kind for a guy (wife, mother, housewife, trophy wife...) a relationship holds no attraction for me.

My setup with my boyfriend is pretty similar to Purple's, and I'm pretty happy with it.

Posted by: Chrissy at March 8, 2008 8:19 AM

3656 Tuesdays is 703 years. A long time....

Posted by: Richard at March 8, 2008 8:54 AM

Perhaps on some other planet. I suggest you buy a calculator. There are 52 weeks in a year. That's 52 Tuesdays a year. Multiply that by 70 years. 52 x 70 = 3640.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 8, 2008 9:34 AM

"I'm having a hard time understanding why this is so hard for people to grasp."

I think I understand it better after reading PurplePen's comment above. I have never felt the way she does or experienced what she describes herself as feeling. (Yet on the other hand, I'm pretty sure I never want a husband. Ha!)

Amy, do think you turned a corner at some point in order to have the relationship you now have with Gregg? What was it about life and who you are that you felt you had to have figured out before you could connect with someone on a deep emotional level?

PurplePen, why do you need to know who you are before you can have a long-lasting relationship, but not before you can have long-lasting friendships? Maybe it's an issue of semantics, or of what "commitment" means. Like, does it seem that if you stay with someone for a certain length of time you have to promise to stay with them for a long time in the future? We don't feel like we have to promise our friends that we will remain friends with them. My friends and family don't all get together and make vows to keep the friendship ties alive. Yet there is the exclusivity factor - I don't have to be "faithful" to my friends by not having other friends, either.

I'm just thinking out loud, here ... your views are a different and interesting perspective.

Posted by: Pirate Jo [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 8, 2008 1:05 PM

I needed to get myself together as a person before I could be with another person. You don't want to connect with anyone on a "deep, emotional level" if you don't know or feel comfortable with what's in you on a deep level, and if you feel unsettled personally and professionally. Professionally seems to matter more to men than women, in general, although I live more like a man (I am what I do, and feel no need to have children or a husband).

Becoming ready to be in a relationship happened before I met Gregg, but because I had my shit together as a person, I felt no need to be with just anybody.

Friendships are different from relationships -- they demand less. And my relationship functions more like a friendship of sorts in that we've never talked about commitment or made any promises. We're just happy together, so why not continue? If we stopped being happy, we'd break up.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 8, 2008 1:18 PM

"PurplePen, why do you need to know who you are before you can have a long-lasting relationship, but not before you can have long-lasting friendships?"

Well Pirate Jo my main goal in a long lasting relationship is commitment for the sake of children. I want them to grow up in a two parent stable household with two loving parents. Whether our partnership lasts after the children are grown we'll see, but to me commitment is very essential to a long lasting relationship. It's why I need to know who I am. There were things with Mr.Right/Perfect that made my stomach churn, not because he was an asshole but things that I would have to sacrifice. For example my vanity about my looks, something which my friends find amusing but Mr.Right found immature (and something I am sure I'll outgrow in the future). I liked him so much but inside of me, when I took a deep look I didnt want to commmit. I had a co-worker who was about 26 and all she would discuss at work was her boyfriend and how she gave him an ultimatum of marriage. I felt like this would be me if I continued with Mr.Right because I would have had no other experiences but him and thus be scared to eventually go out on my own again. Being with him made me anxious, bored, scared (of losing him and never finding anyone like him again), and evenutally I admited to myself that what I really enjoyed in life were my friends, makeup, shoes, clothes and my job. I didn't really enjoy him and not because he was wrong but because I just dont honestly know what I want or who I am. My focus right now should be figuring out what I want. Things ended with Mr.Right and a couple months later I met my current "boyfriend". His philosophy is similar to Chrissy's and it relaxes me because I know I can end it with him anytime (and jump the boat with another guy) and it wouldnt be a big deal.

I dont think my friendships demand to know who I am because as I grow they kind of give me stable footing. A romantic relationship makes me feel claustrophobic, so many diffrent feelings are involved. So many expectations from the other person. So many expectations from myself.

Posted by: PurplePen at March 8, 2008 3:17 PM

"You don't want to connect with anyone on a "deep, emotional level" if you don't know or feel comfortable with what's in you on a deep level, and if you feel unsettled personally and professionally."

That's why this LW's issue has been hard for me to internalize. See, when I was in my early 20's, I never really felt uncomfortable with myself on a deep level. I was terribly inexperienced and immature, and maybe that's why - maybe I was just too big of a ding-a-ling to realize anything was missing in the first place.

I do remember at one point in college, feeling a sort of despair when I realized how much I hated accounting, the major I had chosen, and realized I couldn't afford to spend the extra year at school it would take to change majors. But that's about the only time I ever really experienced much anxiety about the future, and that was more on the 'professional' end of it.

Even at that age, I always wanted a commitment with a deep level of emotional attachment and never saw anything wrong with wanting that. I figured out almost immediately that this was something most boys my age did not want to hear, so I got used to keeping my feelings to myself and not asking for what I wanted - probably not a great habit, although at least it kept them from running away screaming after the first date.

It never would have occurred to me at the age of 25 that I should 'figure myself out' before I got too deeply attached to anyone - I got too deeply attached to the wrong people all the time. That was part of the process by which I started figuring myself out. Which I can say now, looking back with 20/20 and all that.

Posted by: Pirate Jo [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 8, 2008 3:20 PM

Thanks for your post, Purple - it went in at the same time as mine, looks like. If I may be so bold, I think your 'Mr. Right/Perfect' WAS wrong, and that's what made your stomach churn.

There's nothing wrong with being "vain" about your looks - keep it up, girl, and you won't turn into one of those frumpy little trolls I see on the elevator, who only appear to be female because of their holiday-themed sweaters.

And there's nothing wrong with saying that the things you really enjoy are your "friends, makeup, shoes, clothes and job." Makeup and shoes might sound trivial, but everything you enjoy doesn't have to cure cancer. Two things I really enjoy are biking and trying different fancy imported cheeses, and those things aren't going to save the planet either. But that doesn't mean I enjoy them any less!

Posted by: Pirate Jo [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 8, 2008 3:36 PM

Awww thanks Pirate Jo!

Posted by: PurplePen at March 8, 2008 3:52 PM

If you don't know who you are, you can't know what you want in another person, which means you're a dangerous prospect for a relationship -- if you even feel comfortable having one.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 8, 2008 3:52 PM

She's right. Makeup and shoes are not trivial -- and looking good and taking care of yourself will attract men and keep men attracted to you.

P.S. I'm sitting here writing in a cafe in an evening dress, a slim-fitting jeans jacket under a Finnish ski jacket, and wearing a choker of about 12 ropes of pearls.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 8, 2008 3:55 PM

"... a physicist who put herself through MIT as a Victoria’s Secret model, took night school classes from the Dalai Lama, and can cross her legs behind her head while predicting the Super Bowl winner down to a 96 percent accuracy..."

God, that is hot.

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 8, 2008 4:07 PM

Like Pirate Jo, in my 20's I had no idea that I was not finished yet -- thought I knew all the answers and didn't hesitate to get involved with guys (usually wrong guys).

I'd say Purple Pen and Chrissy are wise beyond their years to recognize that they have a lot of growing to do before they commit to anything.

But I still maintain that some sort of relationships are good basic training for the time when you do know what you want, lest you screw up when you find it.

Posted by: Pussnboots at March 8, 2008 6:40 PM

Purple Pen -- While you're figuring out what you want, I hope the expectation of children is on the table for consideration. You mention them as part of your future as if it's a given that you will have them. Is it?

To me, being a mother seems incompatible with your carefree life of friends, shoes, clothes and whatever else you mentioned. This is not a putdown -- I never had kids and never missed them -- just a comment that "having it all" seems like a whole lot of work.

Perhaps when you figure out who you are, you will decide that children are more important to you than the fun you're having now -- or perhaps not. And if children are not all that important to you, you might not feel so claustrophobic in a committed relationship, as it wouldn't be a trap with no way out.

Does this make sense to you? Or anyone?

Posted by: Pussnboots at March 8, 2008 7:08 PM

It makes sense Pussnboots. I know chldren will end all my carefree hobbies. I have no problem with that taking place in the future. I've always wanted to adopt my children, since as far back as I can remember. That's something that is unlikely to change. I am pretty set on children, I think Dan Savage once said that children are a kind of hobby too.

Posted by: PurplePen [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 8, 2008 8:01 PM

Well, as much as I love Dan, children are more of a lifetime commitment than a "hobby". They're a LOT of freakin work, and it helps if both parents are on the same page, so to speak. Being a single parent has been no picnic for me, but neither has it been a "death knoll" of any sort. It's just a lot of work, and kids are a lot smarter than they're given credit for! They pick up on all sorts of things that you think you've hidden well from them. But for the most part, my girls have been a source of joy and inspiration for me. They've also been a major pain in the ass, at times! That just goes with the territory. YMMV

Posted by: Flynne [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 10, 2008 7:14 AM

I would like to mention that it takes a long time to get to know a guy, and that time is well spent, because then you can establish trust, and real intimacy. If you have that, it is conceivable that you could envision a lasting relationship, but that would just happen because you have such a solid foundation.

I was just thinking that I would probably continue to see the guy I'm seeing now because there's no reason to stop seeing him, so it's a bit like negative billing. Since it's he's my 'boyfriend-lite', there aren't many expectations on either of us, which makes it pretty easy.

You can't just decide to stay with someone you hardly know and force it to happen just because you want a commitment so badly.

Since I've never felt the pressure of having kids, I've always been more interested in seeing how each connection with a guy would grow naturally. Some have been strong friendships, some just very passionate fiery short lived ones, and it really depends on the 2 people involved.

Posted by: Chrissy at March 10, 2008 5:11 PM

amy and chrissy-

it's so refreshing to hear other women advocating the kind of unconventional relationships you refer to. a friend who is also a lover is what i'm enjoying right now and it works soooo well for me, much better than the standard, socially acceptable picture of coupling. (i have no interest in marriage, living together, or children.) this friend/lover thing is, in a way, defined by the things we DON'T do, the things that are certain death to fun, spontaneity, and romance. we are not domestic together, he very rarely stays the whole night, we don't just hang out if we aren't doing something fun or becuz we have nothing better to do, we don't often do things that are like typical "dates." we only do the things that we do well together and that are fun, i.e. high intensity outdoor activities that we both love - and sex. it WORKS!

amy --
you said you and gregg "never talked about commitment or made any promises. We're just happy together, so why not continue? If we stopped being happy, we'd break up." was there not (wouldn't there need to be in order for both of you to be on the same page) a conversatin ABOUT not talking about commitment/promises?

Posted by: trina at March 14, 2008 2:21 PM

You are young, so is your relationship, take your time. I did not get married or have kids until I was almost 30. I do not know what else to say . . .

b

Posted by: Bernie Misiura at March 16, 2008 12:37 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)