Jump to content

bluecastle

Platinum Member
  • Posts

    5,812
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    58

bluecastle last won the day on June 23 2023

bluecastle had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

12,337 profile views

bluecastle's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

2.5k

Reputation

1

Community Answers

  1. I think this is a case where "cultural norms and etiquette" is a synonym (or euphemism) for "antagonism." And while I in no way mean to point a finger at you here—I love your posts and vibe!—I do think part of the present friction stems from an unwillingness (mainly in men) to just call it like that. To say: Yeah, women have had the short end of the stick for millennia, been objectified and treated as lesser by men, that sucks, it leaves a mark, and so on. When that can't be common ground, grievances expand, get misdirected, and tensions are magnified. That said, I very much agree with the idea that we're in a moment of knee-jerk reactivity and black-and-white thinking. No text back in two hours? Ghosted! Don't agree with my point of view? Gaslighter! Forgot to empty the dishwasher? Covert narcissist! The default language has become increasingly incendiary, which doesn't bode well for sincere connectivity, since language is the tool we all use to make sense of the world around us.
  2. Curious what you mean by this. As I see it, men being antagonistic toward women is hardly a new paradigm. Historically, it has been the norm: men viewing and treating women as inferior, lesser, as objects, and so on. The difference is that this is now unacceptable—and that many women will be more assertive (as men have long been) in demanding they get treated as they feel they deserve. But I do agree that there's a lot of heightened sensitivity, raw nerves, and timidity surrounding all this friction. Optimistic view is: growing pains, an adjustment, etc. Less optimistic view is: the age of social media distorts and magnifies in ways that makes everyone a little batty. Verdict is out, I suppose. One thing I've found myself thinking of with this thread: For all the pitfalls of dating—and pitfalls are hardly new to dating—there are signs that relationships are improving. The divorce rate is down in the US, for example, and some have commented that may be due to people being more intentional in relationships—and waiting longer to marry. So while the rites and rituals of courtship may be all sorts of discombobulated, perhaps actual relationships are evolving to be more equal and fulfilling?
  3. What age group are you talking about here, out of curiosity? I feel like an outlier in that my experience with the apps was largely positive. Then again, minus a few exceptions, I spent next to zero time getting to know people over chat—largely because I don't think that's super possible. I generally asked people to meet up after a few sentences. To me I think a lot of the fatigue and disappointment comes with equating the activity on the apps as "dating."
  4. Interesting conversation! Putting aside the nostalgia-inducing gauze that the word "courtship" carries, @Kwothe28 makes clear what it was always about: incentives. For the man, historically speaking, the incentives were many: sex, money (the dowries that paid back the initial investment and then some), child care, deference. For the woman, they were far fewer but essential, men being their only access to shelter and (some) money for centuries. Today all that's been shaken up, has been being shaken up for the better part of half century. In broad brushstrokes: women no longer need men in the same way for shelter and money, sex is no longer seen as sinful outside of marriage, marriage is no longer seen as essential for social respect, and so on. All that, I would argue, is wonderful stuff—and at its best it can remove the transaction/performative nature of courtship/relationships and ground it all a bit more in genuine human connection. At the same time, our expectations and rituals around romance are still largely connected to those ancient, gender-specific models, so there's some friction. Many women still want to be "courted" in some fashion, while some men feel the way @Kwothe28 articulated: annoyed that the investment is riskier in a less patriarchal world (while maybe not taking into account such matters like women spending much more on clothing/make-up than men pay for dinner). Other men, meanwhile, may be plagued by a kind of sensitivity paralysis—worried that, say, paying for a meal or some other gesture would come across as retrograde, offensive, or trigger a is-he-playing-me spiral. In both cases, for different reasons, such dudes may opt for the "hang out" route. All that said, in my experience, and in my age group—I'm 44 and my single friends range from 30-50ish—I wouldn't say there's an enormous lack of courtship. The single men I know still pay for the bulk of early outings, as I did when I was single. There are flowers, small gifts, cute notes, though also plenty of casual hangs and cocktails and sex had without clear definitions of what's what. If there's a difference it's that this all starts to go both ways a bit sooner and often settles in a way that's more reflective of income disparity than maintaining gender roles. Anyhow, per the questions of... ...I think in an ideal world we can dispense with the nonsense of a "honeymoon period" or "courtship period," at least in terms of a period of the man "trying to win" the affection of the woman, and instead just focus on connection, respect, curiosity, being yourself and seeing how successfully you can keep being that alongside someone else. Easier said than done, and lord knows everything moving to the screen doesn't help that. But the optimist in me sees the present—and the question here—as a kind of awkward phase of growing pains while we dispense with one set of rules and expectations and find ways to create new ones.
  5. Can only speak for myself, but if my girlfriend did this... ...and shared with me this... ...I would feel like I had a gun to my head no matter which way I turned it. From the outside, it seems like she is more interested in having this kind of power over you than connecting to you. Big picture: This is a whole lot of strife for a relationship that is, all in all, pretty new. My personal sense is that it takes about 2 years to see if 2 people have a real shot at a longterm relationship, as their "true selves" and so on have surfaced, intermingled, likely caused some flare-ups, at which point get an answer to the question of: Do you two, together, create more harmony than agony, or not? I wish I had a magic bullet for you two, but this just sounds like a whole lot of agony on both ends. I very much agree with @catfeeder in taking the step to formally end the engagement and the wedding. I would propose that, saying that you want to agree upon a set timeline (six months, say) to work through these issues. If after that you've learned that they are unworkable, you can both go your separate ways. If you can find away to relieve the pressure, you can move forward together. By proposing this—and gauging her response—you will get a clear answer as to whether or not she actually wants to work through this or whether she is more geared toward holding onto the leverage she's currently wielding.
  6. Sorry about all this. A few questions for context: How old are you guys and how long have you been together? And, most importantly: Can you explain in more detail about the nature of some of these lies? When did the instinct start? Did your partner recently discover the truth about something you lied about? Without understanding all that a bit more, I fear any advice I can offer is vague.
  7. So, you still want to save her? Or is it that you think she would be wrong to blame herself? I'm confused, because you introduced this with a post that did put the blame squarely on her. She, the "malignant and covert narcissist" took aim at you, the "empath," deploying the jujitsu of "love bombing and sex bombing" to "lure" you in. While you did nothing but offer love and reassurance, she acted in spite, making you jealous and withholding sex and subversively emasculating you until it became too much. While I encourage you to challenge yourself on that narrative, for your own growth, I do not think sharing it with her is going to offer closure. Just the opposite, really. It is totally okay to miss and crave something or someone that you full-well know is not good for your health. Seems that's what's happening here, being that this is all still raw and fresh. Rather than thinking about how to alter her own feelings about things, take this time to tend to your own.
  8. I agree with the above, in that you're leaning awfully hard into some highfalutin language to describe something that doesn't require the DSM to process. In short: You got tangled up with someone who was young and hot and volatile, you pressed each other's buttons to the point where both your mainframes went on the fritz, you were eventually able to stand down to all the inner urges that drew you to her enough to pull the plug, and now you're going through some withdrawal and are considering touching the burner one more time. Been there. A few times. But as for the question at hand: No, no reason to contact, especially under the presumptive and condescending notion of "giving her closure," which (to flirt with the language of diagnostics) has in it some treacly undertones of narcissism that you may want to explore and reflect on. On the other hand, if you are craving another spin around the drama-go-round—and no judgement if that's the case—then by all means reach out. But own the instinct, rather than couching it into something she needs to mend her feathers. After all, your desire to be a hero/helper—and to get that little high—is what got you tangled up in the first place.
  9. This seems to be the dominant theme, what you come back to time and again, the frustration that your daughter is not "accountable." And it seems that, conscious or not, the thing that is most important to you right now—far more than seeing your grandchildren—is holding her accountable. In this I wonder if you see how similar you two are—how stubbornly you've each created a red line that ensures nothing changes unless the other person does X, Y, and Z. Hard and real as that line seems to both of you, to the outside, or at least to this outsider, it looks like a mirage, a thing that provides each of you with the same things: a sense of righteousness, a sense of power, the crown of victimhood. And unfortunately it seems you are both hardwired to seek these things in the same way a plant does sunlight, which is the backdrop to this stalemate. Anyhow, here is an idea to consider: the accountability you seek will never, ever, EVER come. Think about that for a quiet moment. Let it simmer, bloom, take root. For emphasis: the accountability you seek is something you will never, ever, EVER get. Think of that not in a moral vacuum but as a hard fact of the world, no different from the existence of an ocean or a mountain. Now, taking that notion into account—the Rocky Mountains cut through North America and your daughter will never be held accountable in the way you seek—ask yourself a simple question: Do you want to have a relationship with your daughter and grandchildren? If the answer is yes, then your work is: letting go of the whole accountability narrative, accepting it as a story at odds with reality, learning to live without it (and thus in actual reality), and creating a reservoir of grace and support to weather this and future moments of a similar shade without going into battle mode. If the answer is no, then your work is: letting go of your daughter and her family, mourning that loss the way one does a death, and embracing the life you and Joe are carving out together. There is sweetness and bitterness in both those choices, as there tends to be in most. You know your own appetite.
  10. And about this? A more honest translation from him, I think, would be: “Babe, I’m running out of ways to assure you I’m super duper into you. I stopped looking at porn and completely absorbed your narrative of shame, convincing myself I had a problem. I have sex with you all the time and talked to your mom about marriage. If that’s still not enough I don’t know what to do. Maybe try punishing me or withholding or…something…and see if that makes you feel better.” Big picture: everyone is different when it comes to all this. Not just that. Everyone exists in a glorious state of flux and evolution. One month they’re super randy, another they’re not. One week lingerie boils the blood, the next it’s sweatpants. This variation and mystery is the best part of it all, though the key to accessing that door is self-assurance.
  11. I think a more honest translation of the above would be: ”The main reason I make a big fuss about intimacy is because I am very insecure, fret constantly about my own looks and hotness, and I need constant reassurance from him that I am fuego.” And if you can own that? You can change the whole narrative here, find a kind of power, become less obsessed with using sex and erections as barometers for your own self worth. Without owning that, however, you’re just going to keep spinning around in this place, continuously looking for signs of his dissatisfaction because it feeds your own narrative about yourself.
  12. Curious: Would an armchair sociologist put the guys you're describing into a single category, or are we talking about dudes from all walks of life? Like, if I saw them from across the bar and had to summarize them in a sentence, would the same sentence apply to most? I ask because my sense is that this sort of thing is pretty common...in certain corners of humanity. Gym-rat alpha dogs, say. Or rabid finance bros. Guys fond of hair gel and fast cars. And so on. Granted, I haven't been single in over 5 years, but I never thought of this as the "new norm" when I was swiping left and right. And among my single fiends, male and female, it's not something that comes up regularly. Sure, you'll occasionally hear of people getting sloppy with hot sauce—I recall some tawdry pics coming out of nowhere from my swiping days—but it seems more the exception than the norm. At least as far as I know.
  13. Here's the thing, and hopefully a lesson that can be gleaned from all this: It's not a competition. There are no sides. No winning, no losing, no "playing." That is for basketball courts, soccer fields, theater stages—or, perhaps a more familiar realm, social media like/follower counts. The story here, meanwhile, is simply one of two people—you and him—who took a stab at connecting and only got so far. From where I sit, for whatever it's worth? Your fixation on "sides" and "did I get played?" is perhaps a reflection of a mentality to reflect on a bit. Because it seemed you were kind of "playing" him in ways and part of what you're angry about right now is that you "lost." That IG post of yours? C'mon, that was a play (for attention, for compliments, for something...). The arguments? Also a play. The quasi-breakups and impulsive unfriending? More plays in search of the same points. Now, I'm not saying you were alone in this—he's got his own gamesmanship tendencies, and it's likely that that's the common ground in which you two created some early intrigue and hot sauce. Hot sauce, though, is not connection. It's just a sensation—and a fleeting one. You can try to maintain it (to stretch this metaphor) though more and more hot sauce. But there is a limit to that: it gets old, stops tasting good, no different than a plate of food drenched in literal hot sauce. Back to the point at hand: While I am not here "taking sides," I am here talking to you, not him. And you are the only person you can look within and, if need be, or if desired, change. He's just one a billion or so dudes on the planet, doing his thing. You liked part of that thing—maybe the part that was hot and distant?—and went to work on seeing if you could mold the parts that weren't there into what you wanted. Another play. Which, hey, all good. Live and learn. If what you truly need for happiness and harmony is a super effusive dude—well, cool. Now you know to gracefully bow out next time you get wind of "nonchalant" rather than going into the playbook to see about finding some blood in those sorts of stones.
  14. Reading your update, my thoughts/opinion ran something like: I really, really hope she can find a way to forgive herself for a stretch of life that, in the grand scheme of things, should not merit any shame or guilt at all. So she hooked up with some randoms—in that she is hardly alone, hardly a "hoe," but simply a human being finding her footing and slipping around a bit, as most of us humans do. It even sounds like one of her instances of "cheating" is more connected to being shamed than actually, well, breaking a mutually agreed-upon boundary. I share the above because as long as she continues to feel shame about all that—and anything that's a whiff of it—the instinct to lie will be there, as lying is often motivated by shame, and that snake chasing its tail is what often leads to other unfortunate choices and actions and a general stunting of maturity. In other words, it's not something your forgiveness can "cure," though it is important that your forgiveness is genuine and that you don't genuinely view her as some kind of "hoe." Yes, it's unfortunate that she couldn't be straight with you about this from the onset—and for some people that would be a dealbreaker. Whether it is for you is a question only you can answer. As it seems, you've made a choice. Now live that choice for a bit, with open eyes, and you'll have all the answers you need.
  15. For whatever it's worth... My personal take is that anger is a powerful and often corrosive emotion—and, as such, we give a certain power (to corrode us) to wherever and whomever we direct it. In the aftermath of hurt, of course, anger is not just normal but a basic instinct. If you materialized from these pixels and slashed my tires, for example, I would be very angry with you. But if that anger remained acute a year later, or a five years later—well, I would call that infusing something (you, the slashing of my tires) with more power than needed, and potentially locking myself into a less than healthy place in the process. The reason I highlighted the above sentence is because, to me, if the flip side of anger is "weakness" that doesn't mean the anger is giving you any real strength. It's more like a mirror, reflecting back at you raw feelings, just in a way that softens them with the guise of "power." Which is totally okay, normal, human, all that gooey stuff. Sounds like there's a painful stretch at the root of this, and even if it's a bit in the rearview mirror, and you're happy with your current situation, the wound is allowed to still be healing. I say let it, more by acknowledging the swirl of feelings—anger here, fading anger there, an unexpected spell of warmth toward him, and so on—without judging them in binary terms (strong vs. weak etc.) or reacting to them at all. When people talk about "time healing," I think they're talking to some degree about anger dissolving into something like indifference. It's not quite a linear cycle, maybe more of a loop that eventually spirals out. What you're describing here sounds like a little trip around that loop when you thought you were on a straighter line. All good. Just not sure if the answer is figuring out how to "hold on" to anger so much as accept that there may be one or two loops around this until the temperature cools.
×
×
  • Create New...