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.
I've found exactly the opposite to this thread, the last 3 women I've dated have tried to commit too quickly! The last girl I met was so lovely too but it just freaked me out how dependant she wanted to be on me within 3months. I wish she would have taken it slow, as it really put me off.
 
hppnssseeker 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"

Are you saying what I consider qualities are turn-offs for guys? Then what the hell do men want??? I really don't get it.

No, but consider that this place as a "is not them, it's you" approach to things. Usually means that the fact you have to describe yourself like that has to do with a flaw you're not dealing with. Maybe you're great, but the factors that rule some kind of fairness in dating are not exactly fair.
 
“Unless meditation is achieved, love remains a misery. Once you have learned how to live alone, once you have learned how to enjoy your simple existence, for no reason at all, then there is a possibility of solving the second, more complicated problem of two persons being together. Only two meditators can live in love – and then love will not be a koan. But then it will not be a relationship, either, in the sense that you understand it. It will be simply a state of love, not a state of relationship.” ~ Osho


“Forget relationships and learn how to relate. Once you are in a relationship you start taking each other for granted – that’s what destroys all love affairs. The woman thinks she knows the man, the man thinks he knows the woman. Nobody knows either! It is impossible to know the other, the other remains a mystery. And to take the other for granted is insulting, disrespectful. To think that you know your wife is very, very ungrateful. How can you know the woman? How can you know the man? They are processes, they are not things. The woman that you knew yesterday is not there today. So much water has gone down the Ganges; she is somebody else, totally different. Relate again, start again, don’t take it for granted. And the man that you slept with last night, look at his face again in the morning. He is no more the same person, so much has changed. So much, incalculably much has changed. That is the difference between a thing and a person. The furniture in the room is the same, but the man and the woman, they are no more the same. Explore again, start again. That’s what I mean by relating.” ~ Osho
 
M_also_lonely said:
“Unless meditation is achieved, love remains a misery. Once you have learned how to live alone, once you have learned how to enjoy your simple existence, for no reason at all, then there is a possibility of solving the second, more complicated problem of two persons being together. Only two meditators can live in love – and then love will not be a koan. But then it will not be a relationship, either, in the sense that you understand it. It will be simply a state of love, not a state of relationship.” ~ Osho

I like that. It reminds me of a book about living alone by Barbara Feldon (Agent 99 from the TV show "Get Smart"). She wanted a loving relationship, but wanted her and her husband to live in separate houses. I think that would make for a very honest, "love them for their authenticity" sort of relationship.
 
M_also_lonely said:
“Unless meditation is achieved, love remains a misery. Once you have learned how to live alone, once you have learned how to enjoy your simple existence, for no reason at all, then there is a possibility of solving the second, more complicated problem of two persons being together. Only two meditators can live in love – and then love will not be a koan. But then it will not be a relationship, either, in the sense that you understand it. It will be simply a state of love, not a state of relationship.” ~ Osho


“Forget relationships and learn how to relate. Once you are in a relationship you start taking each other for granted – that’s what destroys all love affairs. The woman thinks she knows the man, the man thinks he knows the woman. Nobody knows either! It is impossible to know the other, the other remains a mystery. And to take the other for granted is insulting, disrespectful. To think that you know your wife is very, very ungrateful. How can you know the woman? How can you know the man? They are processes, they are not things. The woman that you knew yesterday is not there today. So much water has gone down the Ganges; she is somebody else, totally different. Relate again, start again, don’t take it for granted. And the man that you slept with last night, look at his face again in the morning. He is no more the same person, so much has changed. So much, incalculably much has changed. That is the difference between a thing and a person. The furniture in the room is the same, but the man and the woman, they are no more the same. Explore again, start again. That’s what I mean by relating.” ~ Osho

Coming from a culture that still uses arranged marriages. I'm not even on the point of considering any philosophy that doesn't take into account human nature.
 
Xpendable said:
Coming from a culture that still uses arranged marriages. I'm not even on the point of considering any philosophy that doesn't take into account human nature.

What's with the guilt by association? One Google search tells you he was a controversial figure in his own country and contradicted traditional values. Just saying.
 
Xpendable said:
Coming from a culture that still uses arranged marriages. I'm not even on the point of considering any philosophy that doesn't take into account human nature.

Ah, the cruel punishment of arranged marriages. How cruel were my ancestors, patriarchal, misogynists, weren't they?
I can't blame you for your ignorance about Indian culture, especially the arranged marriage system. You haven't taken the time to understand it. Like most of the Indian people.

It doesn't matter whether you are on the point of considering any philosophy, because it is not for you.
 
Rodent said:
Xpendable said:
Coming from a culture that still uses arranged marriages. I'm not even on the point of considering any philosophy that doesn't take into account human nature.

What's with the guilt by association? One Google search tells you he was a controversial figure in his own country and contradicted traditional values. Just saying.

Monogamy is not controversial.
 
Rodent said:
What's with the guilt by association? One Google search tells you he was a controversial figure in his own country and contradicted traditional values. Just saying.

Reminds me of the saying about half knowledge being more dangerous than total ignorance.
 
M_also_lonely said:
Xpendable said:
Coming from a culture that still uses arranged marriages. I'm not even on the point of considering any philosophy that doesn't take into account human nature.

Ah, the cruel punishment of arranged marriages. How cruel were my ancestors, patriarchal, misogynists, weren't they?
I can't blame you for your ignorance about Indian culture, especially the arranged marriage system. You haven't taken the time to understand it. Like most of the Indian people.

It doesn't matter whether you are on the point of considering any philosophy, because it is not for you.

I hear all the time from indians themselves how unhappy they are for having to marry someone that they don't love (Some of them even gay). An arranged marriage is what it is, doesn't matter how progressive people think they are in 2016.
 
Xpendable said:
Rodent said:
Xpendable said:
Coming from a culture that still uses arranged marriages. I'm not even on the point of considering any philosophy that doesn't take into account human nature.

What's with the guilt by association? One Google search tells you he was a controversial figure in his own country and contradicted traditional values. Just saying.

Monogamy is not controversial.

You talked about arranged marriages though. Not monogamy.
 
Rodent said:
Xpendable said:
Rodent said:
Xpendable said:
Coming from a culture that still uses arranged marriages. I'm not even on the point of considering any philosophy that doesn't take into account human nature.

What's with the guilt by association? One Google search tells you he was a controversial figure in his own country and contradicted traditional values. Just saying.

Monogamy is not controversial.

You talked about arranged marriages though. Not monogamy.

But he is still promoting monogamy. Of course is controversial to bring up deep thoughts to realtionships in a country that sees the act as an utilitarian process.
 
Xpendable said:
M_also_lonely said:
Xpendable said:
Coming from a culture that still uses arranged marriages. I'm not even on the point of considering any philosophy that doesn't take into account human nature.

Ah, the cruel punishment of arranged marriages. How cruel were my ancestors, patriarchal, misogynists, weren't they?
I can't blame you for your ignorance about Indian culture, especially the arranged marriage system. You haven't taken the time to understand it. Like most of the Indian people.

It doesn't matter whether you are on the point of considering any philosophy, because it is not for you.

I hear all the time from indians themselves how unhappy they are for having to marry someone that they don't love (Some of them even gay). An arranged marriage is what it is, doesn't matter how progressive people think they are in 2016.

They have been progressive. Two things to consider here: 1.) Nobody forces you to marry, you can always deny. 2.) The places where arranged marriages aren't prevalent, do have divorces too, so love marriages aren't a great upgradation over arranged marriages. There are people who, after love marriages find out that they were not in love.
Both are unique ideas, none is perfect, but none is better than the other.
 
M_also_lonely said:
They have been progressive. Two things to consider here: 1.) Nobody forces you to marry, you can always deny. 2.) The places where arranged marriages aren't prevalent, do have divorces too, so love marriages aren't a great upgradation over arranged marriages. There are people who, after love marriages find out that they were not in love.
Both are unique ideas, none is perfect, but none is better than the other.

Then why won't they end it?
 
Xpendable said:
M_also_lonely said:
They have been progressive. Two things to consider here: 1.) Nobody forces you to marry, you can always deny. 2.) The places where arranged marriages aren't prevalent, do have divorces too, so love marriages aren't a great upgradation over arranged marriages. There are people who, after love marriages find out that they were not in love.
Both are unique ideas, none is perfect, but none is better than the other.

Then why won't they end it?

Ask them.
 
Xpendable said:
But he is still promoting monogamy. Of course is controversial to bring up deep thoughts to realtionships in a country that sees the act as an utilitarian process.

Fair enough. On topic, I think monogamy is possible when considering pair-bonding in humans. But application in an extreme form - arranged and romantic marriages alike - seems ineffective.
 
M_also_lonely said:
Xpendable said:
M_also_lonely said:
They have been progressive. Two things to consider here: 1.) Nobody forces you to marry, you can always deny. 2.) The places where arranged marriages aren't prevalent, do have divorces too, so love marriages aren't a great upgradation over arranged marriages. There are people who, after love marriages find out that they were not in love.
Both are unique ideas, none is perfect, but none is better than the other.

Then why won't they end it?

Ask them.

I'm pretty sure you know more about indian culture than me.
 
Xpendable said:
I'm pretty sure you know more about indian culture than me.

I think it is because they didn't take the time to get to know each other: Thats the reason why they ended up failing their marriage. And talking about ending marriages, failed marriages end in Indian culture too. And you probably know the effect of multiple divorces on a person.
 
And talking about people finding out being gay or their partners being gay happens in love marriages too. Arranged marriages arent to be blamed for that. Infact that would be a worse case for love marriages, because if two people were so deeply in love with each other, how could they not consider their sexual orientation before marriage?
 
The older i get while living single, the less i see myself being willing to commit.

Im not going to want to start a family after my 30s and i dont want to be someone elses meal ticket. She will need to bring at least something to the table or its just not worth it.

Plus i figure i tried and am not wanted now so after this phase of my life i think ill have given up. At that point casual relationships and short flings will be enough for me while i do my own thing.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top