Chasing those emotionally unavailable

[joandarc2008]

Corinne- sell the darn wedding rings -I will warn you - bring a friend it is kind of a point of no return moment - better Ebay than a pawn shop. The pawn shop does it by the ounce of gold where Ebay someone will want it because it is pretty. I found out most of the jewelry except the stuff I picked out for myself was fake anyway when they tested it. Good luck.

 

[chevalier]

You were quoting stats on women with NPD???

Yeah, because I’m not interested in men.

 

[cmscms]

Examples include people who don’t want commitment, who are not prepared for it, who use the word “situation” to justify letting people down after a little bit of romance, those who give the “LJBF” line in which the “J” part is a sad joke (Bridget Jones offered a definition of this kind of friendship).

.

I think you missed my point. Let me give you an example, Person A comes from a divorced faimily and needs someone who understands that. Person B comes from a loving family so as much as he feels for A (who we will assume is a girl) he can not really understand what she went through and is not emotionally available for that issue.

However, person B may have moved around a lot as a kid so he would be totally emotionally available for girl C who moved around as a kid as well.

That is what I was trying to say

CM

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Let me share what I discovered about the LJBF bomb. When the lady you have been involved with for quite some time, drops the LJBF bomb (I guess it would work the same if a guy made the move to a woman, but I’m a guy so I will present it from a guy’s perspective), you just respond politely as if nothing special has happened. Fake it, dude, if you have to, but don’t gasp for air, and don’t let your jaw drop! Courage, even if you feel shell-shocked inside! You just act as naturally as if NOTHING SPECIAL has happened. Then, you excuse yourself, and slowly, but IMMEDIATELY, and with continued faked nonchalance, start to walk away (just control yourself, and don’t let your knees tremble!). As soon as you are far enough to pretend, reasonably, that you wouldn’t hear even if she were to call out to you, you drop the faked unhurriedness, and you RRRRRUUUUNNNN! You run as if your life depended on it! Because, frankly, it does. I mean, you almost got tangled in the web of an emotionally immature woman, and now, by the grace of God, you escaped without even trying, without even realizing the danger you were in, because let’s face it, you didn’t see it coming, until she suddenly dropped the LJBF bomb on you, and you were blissfully unaware that she was this close to messing up your life! RUN, BABY, RUN! And then, when you are home later that night, say a little prayer of thanksgiving to God. Then, open a beer, and celebrate. You may even want to fetch your best friends and buddies, go to one of these dark and cigarette smoke-filled bars, to relax and let the scare slowly dissipate in good company, while you and your buddies contemplate late into the night, over beers and peanuts (well, pretzels if you are allergic to peanuts ), how your life almost came to an end, torpedoed, landmined, IEDed, snared, blown up and snuffed out, without you even realizing it, and how you got, unexpectedly and through pure grace, another lease on life! :dancing: :extrahappy: :yup:

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

P.S. Watch the caller ID, and never pick up when she calls!!!

 

[chevalier]

I think you missed my point. Let me give you an example, Person A comes from a divorced faimily and needs someone who understands that. Person B comes from a loving family so as much as he feels for A (who we will assume is a girl) he can not really understand what she went through and is not emotionally available for that issue.

However, person B may have moved around a lot as a kid so he would be totally emotionally available for girl C who moved around as a kid as well.

That is what I was trying to say

CM

I see. I very much agree with your thought and it certainly works like that with people. I’m not sure, however, if the hypothetical case coincides with what I had in mind… Perhaps we could suppose the “emotionally unavailables” need a special person to reach them, although in my observation the problem often seems to be somewhere on the commitment/obligations side (avoidance of). Then again, there’s no cure for avoidance of commitment like a hot enough member of the opposite sex.

 

[chevalier]

Joseph, thank ya. That gave me a good laugh. I used to celebrate LJBF like that, it was even a custom to use white wine for that occasion.

It’s always better to find out early than several months or years into it or even decades in some cases.

 

[joandarc2008]

What is LJBF

 

[chevalier]

What is LJBF

“Let’s just be friends.”

 

[joandarc2008]

“Let’s just be friends.”

Got it!!!

 

[chevalier]

Got it!!!

I get it all the time!

 

[joandarc2008]

I get it all the time!

Careful Chev - taken out of context on the American backdrop of slang that could lend itself to some scandal quickly. Ugggh CAF scandal on a thread about the emotionally unavailable.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

What is LJBF

Well, looking at LJBF, I notice that it’s a four-letter word, and an F-word. That’s the dreaded LJBF-bomb.

But I’m plagiarizing Prof. John Finnis, so I might as well quote him. What he said has actually nothing to do with dating. It’s about a more tragic subject, and it’s the remark he made at a recent bioethics conference at Princeton University on the moral status of the fetus (sorry to go to such disturbing subject in this thread , but I need to do it because of this word play that’s relevant here):

thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1849

The Other F-Word
by John Finnis
October 20, 2010

In an article adapted from his debate last week with Peter Singer and Maggie Little on the moral status of the “fetus,” Professor Finnis explains that outside of medical contexts use of the word “fetus” is offensive, dehumanizing, prejudicial, and manipulative. It obscures our perception of moral reality.

About the moral status of the phrase “the fetus,” I will just say this. As used in the conference program and website, which are not medical contexts, it is offensive, dehumanizing, prejudicial, manipulative. Used in this context, exclusively and in preference to the alternatives, it is an F-word, to go with the J-word, and other such words we know of, which have or had an acceptable meaning in a proper context but became in wider use the symbol of subjection to the prejudices and preferences of the more powerful. It’s not a fair word, and it does not suggest an open heart. Those of you who have an open mind or a fair heart may wish to listen to every speaker at this conference, and see whether they are willing to speak, at least sometimes, of the unborn child or unborn baby, and to do so without scare quotes or irony.

For about 12 weeks after viability some of these little beings are on the outside being tended by the pediatrician and everyone as babies, and some of them are on the inside still intertwined with their mothers, and being cared for, in some cases, by gynecologists who recognize they have two patients, and in some cases, as the mother decides (in America, or the party official in China) being threatened with destruction by her (or the state’s) abortionist as a mere fetus.

 

[PatriceA]

I see. I very much agree with your thought and it certainly works like that with people. I’m not sure, however, if the hypothetical case coincides with what I had in mind… Perhaps we could suppose the “emotionally unavailables” need a special person to reach them, although in my observation the problem often seems to be somewhere on the commitment/obligations side (avoidance of). Then again, there’s no cure for avoidance of commitment like a hot enough member of the opposite sex.

This is the problem though with supposing that all it takes is “a special person”. Women (and I suppose guys, but I’m a woman) a good deal of the time cannot let go that they are not that “special person” and will constantly chase the emotionally unavailabe guy. They can not recognize when to give up, they will turn themselves inside out to try and win the guy over. They can not tell the difference between the guy that is emotionally availabe and the guy that will never commit. Too many tv movies and romance novels just perpetuate that notion of that “special person” theory.

 

[BlueSprite]

^^^
I agree with what both you’re saying (PatriceA and Chevalier)…that is, I understand what you mean PatriceA about women chasing the emotionally unavailable men because they want to be that “special person” - but that would mean that in doing so, they’re trying to change them…because ultimately if a man is emotionally unavailble, than he can’t be relationship material.

However, in agreement with Chevalier, I feel that just because someone is emotionally unavailable…well, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s emotionally unavailabe to *all women *…maybe he does need that “special person” to reach him and make him connect emotionally…but in this example it’s not the woman chasing after him - rather, it’s someone else. I’d wager that’s a possibility…I mean, I don’t see why not?

However the thing to recognize, I feel, is to understand that when someone is emotionally unavailable *to you * - to walk. Because it’s simply that. They’re emotionally unavailable…and it doesn’t really matter how, or why, or what possibly made them that way to you, but that they are that way, at least towards you…so why waste your time? Like I’ve said before, no one can change another person. You can’t make someone love you. And you certainly can’t make someone give more (emotionally) than they’re willing to give.

 

[chevalier]

This is the problem though with supposing that all it takes is “a special person”. Women (and I suppose guys, but I’m a woman) a good deal of the time cannot let go that they are not that “special person” and will constantly chase the emotionally unavailabe guy. They can not recognize when to give up, they will turn themselves inside out to try and win the guy over. They can not tell the difference between the guy that is emotionally availabe and the guy that will never commit. Too many tv movies and romance novels just perpetuate that notion of that “special person” theory.

True, the whole special person thing is subject to much drama. And everybody wants to be special.

It’s not easy to tell when to give up. This is a bit of a similar matter to some things that pop up in a lawyer’s work. Depending on how big a risk of being wrong you’re willing to accept, you need this much proof. If you want to limit yourself to only certain conclusions, you will sometimes need to ignore overwhelming probabilities. But if you make quick decisions baing on what’s more probable than not, then you run a higher risk of being wrong.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

^^^
I agree with what both you’re saying (PatriceA and Chevalier)…that is, I understand what you mean PatriceA about women chasing the emotionally unavailable men because they want to be that “special person” - but that would mean that in doing so, they’re trying to change them…because ultimately if a man is emotionally unavailble, than he can’t be relationship material.

However, in agreement with Chevalier, I feel that just because someone is emotionally unavailable…well, that necessarily mean that he’s emotionally unavailabe to *all women *…maybe he does need that “special person” to reach him and make him connect emotionally…but in this example it’s not the woman chasing after him - rather, it’s someone else. I’d wager that’s a possibility…I mean, I don’t see why not?

However the thing to recognize, I feel, is to understand that when someone is emotionally unavailable *to you * - to walk. Because it’s simply that. They’re emotionally unavailable…and it doesn’t really matter how, or why, or what possibly made them that way to you, but that they are that way, at least towards you…so why waste your time? Like I’ve said before, no one can change another person. You can’t make someone love you. And you certainly can’t make someone give more (emotionally) than they’re willing to give.

Very wise post. All true. Your second paragraph reminds me of the Prince Charles/Diana/Camilla Parker Bowles saga - here is a man who fell in love with a woman decades before he married Diana, who probably had very little idea what she was getting herself into. His heart was already given to the other woman, but he married Diana for the creation of the future King of England, and she had the expectation that he actually wanted to be with her as a true husband and father. He took vows but cheated on her the whole time. I’m sure he was emotionally unavailable to Diana because his affections were for Camilla. What a horrible mess that was and still is, IMO.

Anyway, I bolded your last statement because I believe if more people understood that simple fact, we’d have a lot fewer miserable marriages and ultimate divorces. It seems so matter-of-fact and clear, doesn’t it? Yet we twist ourselves in knots trying to make that reality go away…it’s where I am in my own life and my marriage of 22 years. If we hadn’t had kids, it never would have worked. Now that they are almost grown we are back at square one - I want intimacy with him, he says he has no clue whatsoever what I mean.

 

[chevalier]

However the thing to recognize, I feel, is to understand that when someone is emotionally unavailable *to you *- to walk. Because it’s simply that. They’re emotionally unavailable…and it doesn’t really matter how, or why, or what possibly made them that way to you, but that they are that way, at least towards you…so why waste your time? Like I’ve said before, no one can change another person. You can’t make someone love you. And you certainly can’t make someone give more (emotionally) than they’re willing to give.

BlueSprite, one of the things that makes it harder to walk is all the stories about dedication and persereverance and work and it turns out some of our forefathers really had to do some repeat coaxing and things dragged on for a long time.

This leads to a bit of a romantic mini-paradigm, in which the woman is allowed and expected to display a range of behaviours ranging from spoilt to small-scale sociopathic. Which supposedly makes the pursuit and the reward more exciting. Be a spoilt brat, treat the men like dirt, behave like you’re the centre of the world, choose one of the idiots in the end to acknowledge his presence grudgingly and then be surprised that he’s making your life miserable for the next 50 years. Figures. But I’m digressing.

On the other hand, some people sometimes find themselves in a bit of a challenge from life, we aren’t always at our best and we’re all fallible, so it’s hard to cross people out for not being perfectly responsive.

Hope I’m making some sense. It’s been a rough couple of days in terms of sleep etc.

 

[PatriceA]

^^^
I agree with what both you’re saying (PatriceA and Chevalier)…that is, I understand what you mean PatriceA about women chasing the emotionally unavailable men because they want to be that “special person” - but that would mean that in doing so, they’re trying to change them…because ultimately if a man is emotionally unavailble, than he can’t be relationship material.

However, in agreement with Chevalier, I feel that just because someone is emotionally unavailable…well, that necessarily mean that he’s emotionally unavailabe to *all women *…maybe he does need that “special person” to reach him and make him connect emotionally…but in this example it’s not the woman chasing after him - rather, it’s someone else. I’d wager that’s a possibility…I mean, I don’t see why not?

However the thing to recognize, I feel, is to understand that when someone is emotionally unavailable *to you * - to walk. Because it’s simply that. They’re emotionally unavailable…and it doesn’t really matter how, or why, or what possibly made them that way to you, but that they are that way, at least towards you…so why waste your time? Like I’ve said before, no one can change another person. You can’t make someone love you. And you certainly can’t make someone give more (emotionally) than they’re willing to give.

I totally agree. My husband says I was his “special person”. His friends even say I was the “special person.” I had been the woman that had the tendency to chase the emotionally unavailable guy before I met my husband, but I had worked very hard on my own issues to be better able to recognize the guy that was truly, truly unavailable and break the cycle and be able to walk away after the first few dates instead of staying and trying to change the guy. The next guy I was interested in had to show they were ready for the discerning marriage just as much as I was ready. I don’t know if having that new self esteem was what made the difference with my husband or not. I would bet though being emotionally healthy enough for a relationship was a huge factor.

 

[BlueSprite]

@ TheRealJuliane - yes! That Princess Di and Prince Charles and Camilla triangle was a complete mess wasn’t it? For everyone involved.

Regarding my own observations…yep…well my beliefs have been forged from the fires. I’ve fowled things up enough times to learn from my mistakes…and it’s always easy to sit on the sidelines and dish-out advice.

The good thing is I’m more accepting of “reality” these days and am slowly coming to understand that you can’t push or mold relationships into something *you want * them to be…instead you work with what you have, or instead realize it’s not something you could ever work with.

I think part of the difficulty in this is that to really be able to forge a good relationship with someone requires a lot of self-knowledge. That is, knowing yourself extremely well…knowing what you need in life and what type of relationship would make you happy. And this is difficult because it requires taking a really good, long, hard look in the mirror and seeing yourself as you truly are, warts and all; and then to be “ok” with that. Because that is reality…no one is perfect. And then, if you can accept that, and be ok with that, than you’ll naturally attract those who in a way, reflect this belief; that is, someone who enforces that love you feel for yourself. And likewise, when you finally enter a relationship, then the person your with, will feel the love they have for themselves, through your love for them…through your eyes. And in that way, the two of you act as mirrors to each other…each reflecting and supporting this truthout through life.

I remember reading once somewhere, and it struck me as very beautiful and also very true…that the person we love, is the one who allows us to see ourselves through God’s eyes…that is, perfect and whole…

Of course if you don’t love yourself (and I don’t mean loving yourself in the modern way, or the way current society seems to mean (like some kind of ego-feed))…but if a person doesn’t love himself or herself…than they are essentially running from who they are, and therefore will often “chase” those who aren’t good for them because in that *other person *they’re trying to attain that love which they don’t have for themselves. I feel this is often why we see people seeking out those who have attributes or characteristics we feel we “lack” - like perhaps the older man with the much younger female (he feels he lost his youth so he finds it in her as being with the younger woman makes him feel young again too) - or the woman who seeks out the man with power does so because she feels or at one time felt somehow powerless or insignificant, so being with him makes her feel more important - etc…

But these are transient things, and will never be fulfilling. Strangely, with these types of relationships, people often find themselves pursuing them feverdly, like they’re some kind of drug - an infatuation or desperation…I think that’s because people in these types of situations are *so lacking * love in their lives, so lacking it (and here I don’t mean in the romantic sense of love, but simply feeling “loved” by family or friends or parents, etc.) - that they chase after it like a starved animal.

But oddly, in reality…they’re not running towards someone or something, but rather from something…and that something, is themselves…because they were never able to embrace themselves wholly and realize that who they are is simply…enough…there is no lack…nothing was ever missing…because they are…and what they are, is enough.