No one wants to commit anymore

Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum

Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

hppnssseeker

Member
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
How hard can it be to find a guy I like who is available for a relationship??? I've been trying online dating for months and I'm back to square one. The craziest thing is I'm a beautiful woman, I have a nice personality, I'm stable and independent. I've met guys who were interested in me but unfortunately I didn't feel the same way. I can't find what I'm looking for. Whenever I meet a guy I like he either is already taken or he is unavailable for other reasons. First of all, I'm not the kind of woman who falls easily. It takes a mixture of components (physical attraction, emotional and mental connection, compatible character, similar goals) that are very hard to come by. I haven't managed to find this with any of the men I met online. Then strangely enough I met a guy in real life who seemed to be what I'm looking for. I'm physically attracted to him, we seem to have a similar view on life, we clicked mentally and I thought things were going well. Stupidly enough I thought my luck had finally changed. Well, I was wrong. He just told me his last relationship ended badly because she was controlling and possessive, so now that he's single he has no intention of going back to that. It figures! I'm terribly disappointed and feel like crying. I decided to come here and vent instead.
 
At least some guys are interested in you! Look on the bright side! It wont always be like that as time passes. You are picky mhmm. But thats ok.

Sucks you cant find what you are looking for though. I wish you good luck on your quest.
 
So rather it's "no one" you want. Hoping to click straight away and unwilling to compromise on anything; seems like fairly typical stuff for young people.

Not suggesting you should consider someone you have no physical attraction to BTW, but it seems like demanding an immediate mental/emotional connection is unrealistic, like a fantasy.
 
This is exactly where I am. It is JUST too hard. I think this is what happened.

* when marriage first started it was a straight up contract for sex. Women couldn't work and thus were drains on their family and their family had to provide for them when they were gone. So fathers "bribed" men to marry their daughters (with dowerys) to take them off their hands for life. The man did this and got a woman he could always have sex with, kids with, and then, could also have mistresses on the side. Marriages could be arranged for political and society benefit. It was hard to get sex outside of marriage.

* when women started getting more rights, it was wrong to use the above as a justification for marriage, so they had to use "love". A false concept that has taken a relatively sort term feeling and try to extrapolate that over 30 to 40 years. Yes they had to sell people on marriage as an "estate of love". But they still trapped people in it. You could not get out of marriage so, you had to commit. Of course men had mistresses but it was for life. It was hard for guys to get sex unless married.

* then women got some more rights and divorces started. Now we still had the "love" justification but you could still get out of it. Still it isn't and wasn't easy. And we moved to this whole "the importance of marriage and family" justification for encouraging people to stay married... and they did.

* then women started getting per se custody of the kids; and could effectively destroy a man with bogus domestic violence charges; pretty much everyone has divorces and bad / short term relationships and with gays getting married (and getting divorced too) it kind of makes the "importance of marriage and family" seem a little silly. Women started giving up sex more easily and not requiring much of anything in return.

* until we are at a point where there really isn't much incentive to commit. What exactly do guys get out of it anymore? Especially if they are a catch. If they date they can have sex with a different woman every night. They can stay with a woman for a long time and drop her like a hot potato if they get sick of her -- as long as they don't "commit" When they get older and they want to "settle down" they can find some 20 year old who will pop a few kids out before becoming aware and kicking him to the curve.

Everyone should agree today that "love" as we think of it is fleeting and not lasting. And agree that love and having a family are different things. We should contract with people to have children (with agreed ahead of times obligations and agreements) and at the same time.. be free to have sex and love for short periods with people we like but not have those people be the same people we have families with.

Yup I said it.
 
EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* until we are at a point where there really isn't much incentive to commit. What exactly do guys get out of it anymore? Especially if they are a catch. If they date they can have sex with a different woman every night. They can stay with a woman for a long time and drop her like a hot potato if they get sick of her -- as long as they don't "commit" When they get older and they want to "settle down" they can find some 20 year old who will pop a few kids out before becoming aware and kicking him to the curve.

Um...girls do that too.


EmilyFoxSeaton said:
Everyone should agree today that "love" as we think of it is fleeting and not lasting. And agree that love and having a family are different things. We should contract with people to have children (with agreed ahead of times obligations and agreements) and at the same time.. be free to have sex and love for short periods with people we like but not have those people be the same people we have families with.

Yup I said it.

This, I don't agree with.
 
hppnssseeker said:
Then strangely enough I met a guy in real life who seemed to be what I'm looking for. I'm physically attracted to him, we seem to have a similar view on life, we clicked mentally and I thought things were going well. Stupidly enough I thought my luck had finally changed. Well, I was wrong. He just told me his last relationship ended badly because she was controlling and possessive, so now that he's single he has no intention of going back to that. It figures! I'm terribly disappointed and feel like crying. I decided to come here and vent instead.

Wait, I don't understand. Go back to controlling and possessive?
 
TheRealCallie said:
hppnssseeker said:
Then strangely enough I met a guy in real life who seemed to be what I'm looking for. I'm physically attracted to him, we seem to have a similar view on life, we clicked mentally and I thought things were going well. Stupidly enough I thought my luck had finally changed. Well, I was wrong. He just told me his last relationship ended badly because she was controlling and possessive, so now that he's single he has no intention of going back to that. It figures! I'm terribly disappointed and feel like crying. I decided to come here and vent instead.

Wait, I don't understand. Go back to controlling and possessive?

I'm guessing it meant that he wasn't willing to risk it being the same in this relationship.
 
EmilyFoxSeaton said:
They can stay with a woman for a long time and drop her like a hot potato if they get sick of her -- as long as they don't "commit"

Not without having to likely take a huge hit, financially speaking.
 
hppnssseeker said:
The craziest thing is I'm a beautiful woman, I have a nice personality, I'm stable and independent.

This is the female equivalent of "I'm a nice guy"
 
Xpendable said:
hppnssseeker said:
The craziest thing is I'm a beautiful woman, I have a nice personality, I'm stable and independent.

This is the female equivalent of "I'm a nice guy"

Although those traits are probably seen as more desirable than just being nice.
 
Some guys seem to have difficulty with women "not needing them enough".
 
I'd like to address some of Emily's points since they were partially spot-on but need some further evaluation:

EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* when marriage first started it was a straight up contract for sex. Women couldn't work and thus were drains on their family and their family had to provide for them when they were gone. So fathers "bribed" men to marry their daughters (with dowerys) to take them off their hands for life. The man did this and got a woman he could always have sex with, kids with, and then, could also have mistresses on the side. Marriages could be arranged for political and society benefit. It was hard to get sex outside of marriage.

Women did not work outside the home, but they did work in and around it. They were called homemakers for a reason, but that doesn't mean they were just baby ovens and glorified cleaning ladies since there were tasks like sewing clothes for the man and kids or taking care of the family business pre-industrialization. Sure that didn't earn them any money, but it was work that didn't need to be outsourced and paid for either.

EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* when women started getting more rights, it was wrong to use the above as a justification for marriage, so they had to use "love". A false concept that has taken a relatively sort term feeling and try to extrapolate that over 30 to 40 years. Yes they had to sell people on marriage as an "estate of love". But they still trapped people in it. You could not get out of marriage so, you had to commit. Of course men had mistresses but it was for life. It was hard for guys to get sex unless married.

Yeah, "romantic love" as the sole foundation for a marriage is proved to be rather ineffective. Platonic love, equal rights and equal accountability might work better.

EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* then women got some more rights and divorces started. Now we still had the "love" justification but you could still get out of it. Still it isn't and wasn't easy. And we moved to this whole "the importance of marriage and family" justification for encouraging people to stay married... and they did.

You must be referring to no-fault-divorce here. Interestingly it started the trend that women file for divorce more than men do to this very day. But quite often it didn't release the man of financial responsibility.

EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* then women started getting per se custody of the kids; and could effectively destroy a man with bogus domestic violence charges; pretty much everyone has divorces and bad / short term relationships and with gays getting married (and getting divorced too) it kind of makes the "importance of marriage and family" seem a little silly. Women started giving up sex more easily and not requiring much of anything in return.

This. The domestic violence laws which are so heavily in favor of women and the default shift of parental custody to them (also for bogus reasons) in combination with no-fault-divorce lowered the incentive for men immensely, because he could end up in a livelong commitment to support his former family without living with them or even seeing any of them. His provider instinct might still motivate him, but logic will tell him "No".

EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* until we are at a point where there really isn't much incentive to commit. What exactly do guys get out of it anymore? Especially if they are a catch. If they date they can have sex with a different woman every night. They can stay with a woman for a long time and drop her like a hot potato if they get sick of her -- as long as they don't "commit" When they get older and they want to "settle down" they can find some 20 year old who will pop a few kids out before becoming aware and kicking him to the curve.

As Paraiyar hinted, even if he doesn't commit (legally) he can still end up being held responsible in case an "accident" happens (pregnancy) and she doesn't want to abort the baby or possibly lied about birth control since men lack the right to financial abortion. The other dark side of the culture of casual sex is false rape accusations of course.

With all this in mind, we already know it's not the women who are collectively abandoning marriage, right? MGTOW is a thing. So maybe "No one" wanting to commit is not entirely accurate.

AmytheTemperamental said:
Some guys seem to have difficulty with women "not needing them enough".

That's correct. Goes back to the provider instinct I mentioned.
 
Rodent said:
Women did not work outside the home, but they did work in and around it. They were called homemakers for a reason, but that doesn't mean they were just baby ovens and glorified cleaning ladies since there were tasks like sewing clothes for the man and kids or taking care of the family business pre-industrialization. Sure that didn't earn them any money, but it was work that didn't need to be outsourced and paid for either.

Agreed but my point was that women had to be taken care of because they could not legally earn money on their own and survive on their own, with some limited exceptions. So it seems to me that it was a clear quid pro quo situation. I think women were considered property.

But quite often it didn't release the man of financial responsibility.

Exactly. But I think only when they have kids or he makes substainally more than the women. I am honestly unsure how that survives where women have equal rights. I think it is just another way of trapping people in marriage.

because he could end up in a livelong commitment to support his former family without living with them or even seeing any of them. His provider instinct might still motivate him, but logic will tell him "No".

People still do it because brain washing is so strong and some people are ignorant of reality but more and more it seems like something that isn't good. The only reason to marry before was honestly, to have sex. That was the big "card" that women had. Once they started giving that away for free and punishing the man... where is the incentive?

So maybe "No one" wanting to commit is not entirely accurate.

But every year there are more and more people not getting married. In this culture right now there are a lot of pressures on everyone to get married. Though it doesn't make sense it makes sense for employers and government and movies and tv continue to push that message. That will last for a while but every year more and more people get married later or don't at all.

That's correct. Goes back to the provider instinct I mentioned.

I was lied to by movies. They all told me being independent would get me a great husband. What a laugh. It is exactly the opposite. I also feel like maybe 100 years ago it was attractive for a man to see an independent woman because that was unusual. But today, it is the normal and it is more attractive to see a dependent woman because THAT is unusual. I feel like there has been a government agenda to get women to be independent. It doubles the incomes for taxes and taxes via spending. But it is not best for people.

But sometimes I read the "love letters" in my local paper and overwhelmingly people that are married are miserable. So many of my friends who were married 10 years ago are now going through costly and emotionally expensive divorces. Some of my friends who are still in "love" are not aware their spouses are cheating on them. I just wish people would finally let go of the romance fable or realize that romance is a short term thing.
 
ardour said:
cause men see women as sandwich-making sex dolls and broodmares, dontcha know.

This made me laugh. Best comment ever.

As for the OP... If this guy saw in you what he saw in the ex ("no intention of going back to that"), then perhaps you came off too strongly. Clicking with someone, in any way, has to come from both sides. It doesn't sound like he thinks the same of you. Or if he does, which there's a possibility he does, he's just not saying it because of the ex. Which is sad for his possible future relationships, but at the same time, self-protection can be strong sometimes. I think that things typically happen for a reason, and I also think that if things are meant to be, they'll happen. If not this guy, then when the right person does come along, you'll understand why this didn't work out.
 
EmilyFoxSeaton said:
Agreed but my point was that women had to be taken care of because they could not legally earn money on their own and survive on their own, with some limited exceptions. So it seems to me that it was a clear quid pro quo situation. I think women were considered property.

Fair enough. I think it's just necessary to mention that being considered (valuable) property comes with the bonus of protection since women are less expendable than men from a biological point of view. This is not meant to excuse, merely to explain.

EmilyFoxSeaton said:
Exactly. But I think only when they have kids or he makes substainally more than the women. I am honestly unsure how that survives where women have equal rights. I think it is just another way of trapping people in marriage.

Well said. There's the distinction between child support and alimony which is specifically for the spouse and from what I understand can be permanent if the marriage/civil union has persisted for a certain amount of time. I think that's an aspect worthy of revision and it has been partially abolished in some countries or select states within them. I mean, if you get alimony for life and you enjoy that standard of living there might not be any motivation to ever pick up a job again...

EmilyFoxSeaton said:
People still do it because brain washing is so strong and some people are ignorant of reality but more and more it seems like something that isn't good. The only reason to marry before was honestly, to have sex. That was the big "card" that women had. Once they started giving that away for free and punishing the man... where is the incentive?

Yes, some even resort to shaming tactics in order to sell the now broken system of marriage. The "gatekeeper" position that is often attributed to women in regards to access to sex has dissolved. But women and men will still want to have children and may want to have some sort of "badge" that seals the deal and ensures a certain level of legal security for both. Problem is the obvious imbalance...

EmilyFoxSeaton said:
I was lied to by movies. They all told me being independent would get me a great husband. What a laugh. It is exactly the opposite. I also feel like maybe 100 years ago it was attractive for a man to see an independent woman because that was unusual. But today, it is the normal and it is more attractive to see a dependent woman because THAT is unusual. I feel like there has been a government agenda to get women to be independent. It doubles the incomes for taxes and taxes via spending. But it is not best for people.

But sometimes I read the "love letters" in my local paper and overwhelmingly people that are married are miserable. So many of my friends who were married 10 years ago are now going through costly and emotionally expensive divorces. Some of my friends who are still in "love" are not aware their spouses are cheating on them. I just wish people would finally let go of the romance fable or realize that romance is a short term thing.

I quoted Amy's statement for that reason. Uniqueness in and of itself is not necessarily attractive. I have some doubts (rooted in biology) that an independent woman ever was seen as significantly more attractive to the average man because of said protector instinct which causes the man to question his usefulness. And frankly, I believe losing his usefulness is one of the worst blows for a man. Financial independency is not everything of course, a man could still act out on this instinct when it comes down to emotional well-being of his partner.

But I certainly agree that governments pushing marriage without any reformation of the related laws (divorce, custody, alimony, child support) will remain ineffective. Just like the idea of selling it as romance alone does.
 
Paraiyar said:
Xpendable said:
hppnssseeker said:
The craziest thing is I'm a beautiful woman, I have a nice personality, I'm stable and independent.

This is the female equivalent of "I'm a nice guy"

Although those traits are probably seen as more desirable than just being nice.


Yeah, but when a man says that he means some other traits like the ones you named. It's just that is not very good for a man to flatter himslef like that.
 
VanillaCreme said:
Rodent said:
And frankly, I believe losing his usefulness is one of the worst blows for a man.

What if he wasn't useful to begin with?

Then it's very likely he wasn't deemed a "real man" by his environment in the first place. Also known as a deadbeat.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top