Recognising Self Esteem Issues

[Silly_Girl]

I think it was WhiteFlower (if it was not, I apologize) who said something along the lines of her having been married and hurt and how her current arrangement works for her...and I think that's the same type of thing as well, where due to fears, past hurts or whatever it is, the reason why taken people or otherwise not totally available people are attractive to you is because it mirrors something in yourself.

 

I'm not sure it's always about fears etc. I have two friends, well one is really just an acquaintance, who have kids and have removed themselves from marriage/long-term cohabiting and now don't want that again. One of them is deeply in love with her guy but after trying to move in with him she and the kids left after 6 months. She loves her space, being able to study when it suits her, eat dinner when it suits her, make all the household decisions, but it's also lovely that X amount of the time she has a fulfilling relationship.

 

Not every woman wants to get married/have kids and we accept that, so I don't see the difference in accepting that sometimes a person doesn't WANT a full-on, traditional R set-up. And 'part-time' can be the ideal.

[MissBee]

I agree.....which reinforces my point that dating married men, long distance relationships,workaholics, emotionally unavailable people etc is usually because you yourself are unavailable and therefore find that limiting capacity to match your own limited capacity. So we're not disagreeing, what you said illustrates beautifully what I mean.

 

I think it was WhiteFlower (if it was not, I apologize) who said something along the lines of her having been married and hurt and how her current arrangement works for her...and I think that's the same type of thing as well, where due to fears, past hurts or whatever it is, the reason why taken people or otherwise not totally available people are attractive to you is because it mirrors something in yourself.

 

I meant to add:

 

 

I do not disagree that the situation can "work" for you...it can, because it's not breaching the limits that you yourself find uncomfortable. The confusion comes in though where people don't realize (like myself at one point) that they are fearful of commitment so inadvertently choose people (taken men, long distance, men who were aloof, workaholics) who are least likely to be able to fully commit, because of that lack of awareness they get upset when the limited capacity of the relationship shows itself, not realizing that they are at cross purposes with themselves. I for example, on one level wanted a full commitment but on the other I clearly chose people who couldn't give it but it wasn't a completely conscious choice, I somehow always attracted such people, I would even joke that "only men with women seem to love me", never realizing it was a reflection of myself and where I was at emotionally.Even when full commitment was offered I suddenly didn't want it anymore and shied away, but if it wasn't offered I would get frustrated and upset. That is what happens to many women/men who date married/taken people who don't realize their own commitment issues. However, if you admit that the limited capacity works for where you're at then it makes things easier.

 

I think there's a big difference between choosing someone who's schedule matches your own for example and choosing someone who is married or dating someone else. I think the former is a matter of logistics while the latter has an inherent flaw and tells more about your psyche than the former.

Edited June 8, 2011 by MissBee

[MissBee]

I'm not sure it's always about fears etc. I have two friends, well one is really just an acquaintance, who have kids and have removed themselves from marriage/long-term cohabiting and now don't want that again. One of them is deeply in love with her guy but after trying to move in with him she and the kids left after 6 months. She loves her space, being able to study when it suits her, eat dinner when it suits her, make all the household decisions, but it's also lovely that X amount of the time she has a fulfilling relationship.

 

Not every woman wants to get married/have kids and we accept that, so I don't see the difference in accepting that sometimes a person doesn't WANT a full-on, traditional R set-up. And 'part-time' can be the ideal.

 

That is all fine....however, the problem as I will always say is, why can't one find someone who doesn't have someone else who will be able to give you that same arrangement sans drama?

 

Just doesn't make sense.

 

I was saying in another thread or maybe this, I forget, that there are non-traditional relationships in our society, polyamory and polygamy for example. The difference is, when people choose these arrangements they are forthright about it and allow all people participating to CHOOSE it. They say this is who they are, what they believe and find those that agree and merrily live their life.

 

Dating married men or men with gfs is not forthright....if one told the wife or gf then it would no longer be an affair, but some alternative polyamorous lifestyle. What differentiates it from merely being an "alternative arrangement" is the lies and the fact that someone in the matter doesn't have a choice (spouses usually). Once you go there I think that raises a flag...unless one is going to say well deceit is just an alternative lifestyle choice, which I'm sure someone can make that argument if they choose to.

 

Stealing is an alternative form of gaining something without working for it technically, raping is an alternative form of getting sex that would not otherwise be given we can argue. The problem is though, that it goes against someone's will so you can't just say it's your alternative choice that works for you. In the matter of rape for example, why not choose someone into domination and so forth who you can be forthright with who will allow you to play that out instead of going into some situation that is dishonest.

[Silly_Girl]

That's bringing another argument in to it, that of participation in affairs, I was picking up on a point you made and talking about women who don't WANT their men to be fully available; out of choice not because they're frightened.

[MissBee]

That's bringing another argument in to it, that of participation in affairs, I was picking up on a point you made and talking about women who don't WANT their men to be fully available; out of choice not because they're frightened.

 

 

I think someone saying that they don't want their man to be fully available is in itself a faulty way of putting it. I think how you phrase something speaks a lot to your mentality about it. If someone were to say "I want a man who is not going to be available fully..." it would seem very awkward and one would probably ask why bother or think that person very strange. Which is why I said I understand choosing a man whose schedule fits yours, that is understandable, but to say you're choosing someone who won't be fully available rings all kinds of alarm bells as the two have different meanings.

 

And then the matter of choice goes back to my point about choosing something consciously versus subconsciously. I have learned that not everything can be taken at face value, and even with myself as I explained, I made "choices" that outwardly seemed one way but I was subconsciously choosing it for another reason and fear was one of them. I however, was unaware of that and felt that I was making fully conscious decisions based on nothing but a healthy outlook. Many people go around doing quite dysfunctional things and feel quite pleased with themselves and their agency.

 

So for me...just because someone tells me they're choosing something (particularly something potentially destructive) for one reason, like alcoholics who say they simply like to drink , or compulsive overeaters who say they simply like food, it really doesn't make any difference as that "choice" as we usually find out upon deeper exploration is not much of a flippant choice after all. A woman who says she likes unavailable men or men available only sometimes and goes as far as to even use that term would be someone whom I would look at as choosing it for reasons that are more than meets the eye, even if she herself isn't admitting it.

 

I like the exercise of asking yourself a series of why questions that help you to break your actions down to the core. Most people never ask why or ask about 2 whys that only graze the surface; however if they persisted with the whys they may surprise themselves. If someone has done that honestly and still can come up with the same answer as before, then I will resign my position and say well you've examined your conscious and subconscious motivations and nothing is wrong after all, carry on! But if not....then to me, the large possibility is still there that this person doing the choosing may not be choosing for the reason they think they're choosing after all.

Edited June 8, 2011 by MissBee

[Silly_Girl]

'Busy'? A busy man with a full life and other commitments/interests that don't leave him wanting lots of your time?

 

Does that sound more acceptable?

[betterdeal]

My theory is that we mostly get involved (on every level) with people who are in a similar physical and metaphysical place as ourselves. Quite often, relationships (work, family, friends, lovers - have have you) are a pairing of people out for the same thing.

 

Self-esteem is self respect and liking. I hold you in high or low esteem. I hold me in high or low respect. When I was a fat, smelly drunk, I asked myself, who would want to be with a fat, smelly drunk? Not me.

 

So I ask myself, would I like me? If there are things I don't like about me - things I'd avoid or confront in others - then I will do the same with myself. It's a lot easier to stand up for yourself if you live up to your own standards. If your standards are unrealistic, make them realistic. If your life is complicated, simplify it. If you're too fat for your own liking, lose weight. If you're too sarcastic too often with malicious intent, become less sarcastic with less malice.

 

Above all else, understand yourself and you'll begin to understand others better too. To thine own self be true.

[MissBee]

'Busy'? A busy man with a full life and other commitments/interests that don't leave him wanting lots of your time?

 

Does that sound more acceptable?

 

 

Let me give a personal example that I posted elsewhere on this board. I was dating a guy recently who travels a lot for his job. I am going away to graduate school in another state and my friends were like "Well how is it going to work since you're leaving, does it even make sense?" I told them that it didn't matter to me as I prefer long distance sometimes anyway. School is going to consuming enough, I can't date someone who goes to my school, and even someone living in that city, I'd rather not. I prefer if he lives here and I come visit and vice-versa. Having him in my face 24/7...I just can't. Fair enough? I figured that sounds reasonable...

 

A slew of things happened and I ended up questioning my entire relationship with this guy and then I started considering my past relationships and even how I fantasize about relationships and asked myself those "why questions"....I was SHOCKED that there was a pattern and that some of my simplistic choices meant so much more than I thought they did. I realized that the longest relationship I had was long distance and he was with someone else, another relationship of mine the guy was in an open relationship with someone else in another country and I was also going away soon, another the guy still lived with his ex, another, he was working all the time, another he told me he didn't attach to people easily. I started thinking omg...that's weird. Not only that, I realized that when I was with an ex who I frequently stayed at his house for sleepovers and sometimes multiple nights, I became antsy and bored. I realized that when I envisioned marriage I ALWAYS fantasized about having a husband who traveled a lot for work and I too would travel a lot for work and we would have these romantic rendezvous when we had downtime to be together so our relationship in my mind always maintained that type of "newness".

 

Without being too too long....my introspection lead me to ask myself whether or not these coincidences were normal choices something else? I was shocked to find out that I was a commitment phobe as much as I talk about marriage (my friends always tease me about it because I am always talking about my future wedding, husband and babies, so I would be the least likely suspect of commitment phobia). But I am....I didn't know. All the relationships I attract and choose and how I choose to conduct them wreak of limited capacity and being unavailable. I didn't simply like a man who worked a lot or lives another city "just cause I like space", which I do like space, but part of it is because of that latent fear of getting too close, that latent fear of becoming bored and myself becoming a cheater (and when I examined my parents' relationship, wrought with infidelity and dysfunction, it made sense as to why I was a closet commitment phobe and was unaware of it and why I was scared I would become bored with my husband/bf).

 

All that I am putting out there about myself, I'm using to say that, I like every other intelligent, confident woman, made choices that I had a reason for that was innocent enough, but it was only when I stopped and analyzed it did I realize 1. A pattern and 2. That something wasn't connecting and that it wasn't 100% authentic but coming out of latent fears I HAD NO IDEA I had!

 

Only that individual, and only after questioning herself, can know whether or not her choices are innocent and healthy or coming from a place inside that she isn't even aware of. I do believe some people never question it and it remains unknown, for some, other people can see it about them and for some (like myself) you end up getting to a place of realization through unhappiness or some other turn of fortune that bursts the can of worms open. If I hadn't gotten to that point, I'd think nothing of my choices....why should I? So that goes back to me saying, until someone can honestly say they have questioned their choices and don't take them at face value, and then after wards come back to the same place, then they may very well be making decisions based on latent fears and issues and are none the wiser.

[MissBee]

My theory is that we mostly get involved (on every level) with people who are in a similar physical and metaphysical place as ourselves. Quite often, relationships (work, family, friends, lovers - have have you) are a pairing of people out for the same thing.

 

Self-esteem is self respect and liking. I hold you in high or low esteem. I hold me in high or low respect. When I was a fat, smelly drunk, I asked myself, who would want to be with a fat, smelly drunk? Not me.

 

So I ask myself, would I like me? If there are things I don't like about me - things I'd avoid or confront in others - then I will do the same with myself. It's a lot easier to stand up for yourself if you live up to your own standards. If your standards are unrealistic, make them realistic. If your life is complicated, simplify it. If you're too fat for your own liking, lose weight. If you're too sarcastic too often with malicious intent, become less sarcastic with less malice.

 

Above all else, understand yourself and you'll begin to understand others better too. To thine own self be true.

 

YES! Said more succinctly than I've said it.

 

I do believe that not only intellectually but have witnessed it in my life.

 

You don't attract unavailable people unless you too are unavailable, everything in your life is a reflection of your inner reality.

 

I don't believe things are haphazard and without cause and while I am spiritual and that is the other side of what I believe, even on a psychological level there is SO MUCH mimicking going on and so much of who we are or what we've experienced and internalized being bounced back to us by the romances, friendships etc. we choose.

[pureinheart]

My theory is that we mostly get involved (on every level) with people who are in a similar physical and metaphysical place as ourselves. Quite often, relationships (work, family, friends, lovers - have have you) are a pairing of people out for the same thing.

 

Self-esteem is self respect and liking. I hold you in high or low esteem. I hold me in high or low respect. When I was a fat, smelly drunk, I asked myself, who would want to be with a fat, smelly drunk? Not me.

 

So I ask myself, would I like me? If there are things I don't like about me - things I'd avoid or confront in others - then I will do the same with myself. It's a lot easier to stand up for yourself if you live up to your own standards. If your standards are unrealistic, make them realistic. If your life is complicated, simplify it. If you're too fat for your own liking, lose weight. If you're too sarcastic too often with malicious intent, become less sarcastic with less malice.

 

Above all else, understand yourself and you'll begin to understand others better too. To thine own self be true.

 

Your entire statement was very good, although what is in bold really spoke to me, especially the second bolded paragragh.

 

You make it sound really easy...and you know what, it is so easy and simple that it's scary! Thanks, very encouraging:)

[Rooke]

I think the phrase for seeing someone but having severe constraints on your time is 'casual' so if neither party wants something full on then that suits everyone. I don't believe you have to step on someone elses territory to do that though. There's probably thousands, millions of men who aren't in a relationship and if you both agree that if you met someone else you may go out on a date then that's fine.

As MissBee says mostly in an A you're not given a choice, like when I first met MM I didn't know he was married so therefore I didn't get a choice as to whether I wanted to involve myself in something like that. When I moved to be closer to him, I didn't get a choice because I didn't have the full picture because I only knew what he was telling me.

I also agree that most relationships tend to follow a pattern and I've 27 and never been in a long term choices and I thought subconsciously "Well it won't work out anyway so at least if I choose something I know has no future then I can be prepared' of course life isn't like that but I know that's what I thought.

I have a friend, she's Canadian but lives in London and when she first moved here she fell in love with a guy and they were living together and one day she woke up and looked out the window and saw him in the back garden having sex with someone else, she's never had a serious relationship since but she had a fling with someone recently and she suspected he had a girlfriend because he let her down reguarly and even though she really liked him, she walked away because she never wants to make someone else feel the way that girl made her feel.

She won't discuss my situation, she did the first and second but not the third, and I don't blame her because if you're not prepared to change, you can't keep expecting people to pick up the pieces.

[OWoman]

I agree.....which reinforces my point that dating married men, long distance relationships,workaholics, emotionally unavailable people etc is usually because you yourself are unavailable and therefore find that limiting capacity to match your own limited capacity. So we're not disagreeing, what you said illustrates beautifully what I mean.

 

I think it was WhiteFlower (if it was not, I apologize) who said something along the lines of her having been married and hurt and how her current arrangement works for her...and I think that's the same type of thing as well, where due to fears, past hurts or whatever it is, the reason why taken people or otherwise not totally available people are attractive to you is because it mirrors something in yourself.

 

No, I don't think we are agreeing. You are positing "unavailable" and "available" as two polar concepts, laden with values ("available healthy, unavailable damaged") while I posit "availability" as a relative term which one ascribes to someone in relation to one's own availability and requirements.

 

If they were polar concepts, then the only truly available people by those criteria would be the unemployed layabouts with no interests, commitments or responsibilities. Everyone else's availability is limited by such things - those who work 9-5 are less available than those who work part-time but more available than those who work 14 hour days. Parents of teenagers are less available than those with no children but more available than those small children.

 

It is not only emotional damage - fear, or however you put it - that makes someone seek out a lover who does not meet your criteria of "availability" (which are not the same as her criteria of availability - if he meets her availability requirements, she sees him as fully available TO HER - even if, given your differing requirements, he may not appear to be fully available TO YOU). It can be something as mundane as logistics - working schedules, child care requirements, other commitments that leave only a small amount of time available for such pursuits. Or it could simply be that she has "contact overload" - perhaps working all day as a carer, or nursery teacher - and have no requirement for the kind of intensity that a full-time R provides / demands.

 

"Unavailability" as you paint it is a deficit - as I see it, it could in some cases be due to deficit, in other cases due to surfeit, and in still other cases due simply to choice, not interpreted by the person themself as "unavailability" but as "availability within their constraints / circumstances / choice".

[betterdeal]

You don't attract unavailable people unless you too are unavailable, everything in your life is a reflection of your inner reality.

 

Turn it around - you don't make yourself available whilst you have some internal work to do. People are attracted to you all the time. Honestly, I'm a 6'3" man, 37 years old, bit of a belly, weather-worn face. If I'm feeling chipper and go out of my house to almost anywhere, there will be at least one woman who gets them feelings without any trying on my part. Nurses, news agents, estate agents, women on the bus, someone in the park, literally anywhere you go, nostrils flare, pupils dilate, voices falter, all those little things and the ones we don't even register consciously, so long as we're open to them, to thinking, "she / he's good looking girl / guy" and not hiding it.

 

And that's another thing - trying. We all much more attractive when we're not trying to be. Maybe that's the beauty that sadness brings out, when we aren't trying to be attractive and are just being real.

Edited June 8, 2011 by betterdeal

[Silly_Girl]

Let me give a personal example that I posted elsewhere on this board. I was dating a guy recently who travels a lot for his job. I am going away to graduate school in another state and my friends were like "Well how is it going to work since you're leaving, does it even make sense?" I told them that it didn't matter to me as I prefer long distance sometimes anyway. School is going to consuming enough, I can't date someone who goes to my school, and even someone living in that city, I'd rather not. I prefer if he lives here and I come visit and vice-versa. Having him in my face 24/7...I just can't. Fair enough? I figured that sounds reasonable...

 

A slew of things happened and I ended up questioning my entire relationship with this guy and then I started considering my past relationships and even how I fantasize about relationships and asked myself those "why questions"....I was SHOCKED that there was a pattern and that some of my simplistic choices meant so much more than I thought they did. I realized that the longest relationship I had was long distance and he was with someone else, another relationship of mine the guy was in an open relationship with someone else in another country and I was also going away soon, another the guy still lived with his ex, another, he was working all the time, another he told me he didn't attach to people easily. I started thinking omg...that's weird. Not only that, I realized that when I was with an ex who I frequently stayed at his house for sleepovers and sometimes multiple nights, I became antsy and bored. I realized that when I envisioned marriage I ALWAYS fantasized about having a husband who traveled a lot for work and I too would travel a lot for work and we would have these romantic rendezvous when we had downtime to be together so our relationship in my mind always maintained that type of "newness".

 

Without being too too long....my introspection lead me to ask myself whether or not these coincidences were normal choices something else? I was shocked to find out that I was a commitment phobe as much as I talk about marriage (my friends always tease me about it because I am always talking about my future wedding, husband and babies, so I would be the least likely suspect of commitment phobia). But I am....I didn't know. All the relationships I attract and choose and how I choose to conduct them wreak of limited capacity and being unavailable. I didn't simply like a man who worked a lot or lives another city "just cause I like space", which I do like space, but part of it is because of that latent fear of getting too close, that latent fear of becoming bored and myself becoming a cheater (and when I examined my parents' relationship, wrought with infidelity and dysfunction, it made sense as to why I was a closet commitment phobe and was unaware of it and why I was scared I would become bored with my husband/bf).

 

All that I am putting out there about myself, I'm using to say that, I like every other intelligent, confident woman, made choices that I had a reason for that was innocent enough, but it was only when I stopped and analyzed it did I realize 1. A pattern and 2. That something wasn't connecting and that it wasn't 100% authentic but coming out of latent fears I HAD NO IDEA I had!

 

Only that individual, and only after questioning herself, can know whether or not her choices are innocent and healthy or coming from a place inside that she isn't even aware of. I do believe some people never question it and it remains unknown, for some, other people can see it about them and for some (like myself) you end up getting to a place of realization through unhappiness or some other turn of fortune that bursts the can of worms open. If I hadn't gotten to that point, I'd think nothing of my choices....why should I? So that goes back to me saying, until someone can honestly say they have questioned their choices and don't take them at face value, and then after wards come back to the same place, then they may very well be making decisions based on latent fears and issues and are none the wiser.

 

I do understand this. And good for you!

 

I think it's simpler for my friend. 2 primary-aged kids, 2 part-time jobs, part-time college course, ill mum and trying to see friends in between it all. She just didn't have headspace to do the things she wants to do to improve herself, and look after her kids, and nurture a new, live-in R with someone who keeps odd working hours (meal-times and bed-times were a major hassle apparently, the timing of them - for everyone). Something had to give. So now she has what she predominantly calls her 'weekend relationship' and there'll be more one day, but for her now she feels she has no more of herself to give and any man who was trying to claim more of her time than she has available would come unstuck!

[MissBee]

No, I don't think we are agreeing. You are positing "unavailable" and "available" as two polar concepts, laden with values ("available healthy, unavailable damaged") while I posit "availability" as a relative term which one ascribes to someone in relation to one's own availability and requirements.

 

If they were polar concepts, then the only truly available people by those criteria would be the unemployed layabouts with no interests, commitments or responsibilities. Everyone else's availability is limited by such things - those who work 9-5 are less available than those who work part-time but more available than those who work 14 hour days. Parents of teenagers are less available than those with no children but more available than those small children.

 

It is not only emotional damage - fear, or however you put it - that makes someone seek out a lover who does not meet your criteria of "availability" (which are not the same as her criteria of availability - if he meets her availability requirements, she sees him as fully available TO HER - even if, given your differing requirements, he may not appear to be fully available TO YOU). It can be something as mundane as logistics - working schedules, child care requirements, other commitments that leave only a small amount of time available for such pursuits. Or it could simply be that she has "contact overload" - perhaps working all day as a carer, or nursery teacher - and have no requirement for the kind of intensity that a full-time R provides / demands.

 

"Unavailability" as you paint it is a deficit - as I see it, it could in some cases be due to deficit, in other cases due to surfeit, and in still other cases due simply to choice, not interpreted by the person themself as "unavailability" but as "availability within their constraints / circumstances / choice".

 

 

Everytime I use the word availability in the context of interpersonal relationships it has to do with a readiness and authenticity with regards to being able to cultivate true intimacy. That's what that type of availability means.

 

Your schedule and literal availability in terms of....I can only hang out from 12-5 on Sundays (while it could be as a result of some latent emotional unavailability if that is the only type of relationships you choose) is a different matter that concerns schedules and other logistics.

 

 

I am not saying that a good relationship is one where you are available in the sense of time, 24/7, and you have no life besides waiting around for this other person....that's ridiculous. What I am saying is that emotional availability is key to a successful romantic relationship and there are certain markers that indicate someone's level of emotional availability and readiness. Some of these markers could very well be "choice" and nothing to do with them in fact being emotionally unavailable...sure...but sometimes these same choices that seem innocent mask an emotional unavailibility that hasn't been addressed. I used myself as an example to say that I too made certain choices and I didn't think "Im emotionally unavailable and commitment phobic why I am doing this"...I thought they were logistically sound at the time...but when it unraveled I realized I had a pattern and I conveniently always was "so busy" and always chose those types of scenarios that wouldn't allow true intimacy to develop.

 

But I don't think I can make this point in any other way, so after this I may have to drop this topic. Emotional availability is what I'm talking about when I talk about it and not mundane availability. Mundane availability issuescan be a marker of one's emotional availability. Not everything people do or say they're doing is for the reason they're saying and sometimes they themselves are unaware. Only an authentic assessment of self will show whether or not one's choices are in fact "no biggie" or speak to something deeper. Tis all

 

Oooh actually the point about relativity and so on that's a whole other argument I'd like to make a thread about and I would also like to ask the question about if an unhealthy relationship pattern "works" (and what does that mean?) does it make that type of pattern healthy or are there objective markers for what is unhealthy and what is not or is EVERYTHING a matter of what that person chooses to believe at that moment in time?

[MissBee]

This is true ( at least in my experience)

 

many people see a person who is very verbose, uses a lot of large words to convey a simple point, is very outgoing, brags a lot, etc. as having self confidence. this may not be the case. Some people like that actually have a very low self esteem, but may not even realize it. It's almost as if they have to fight really hard to convince the world ( and themselves) that they are important and have value. some ae self confident to the point that it borers on (or is) arrogance

Some people who are self confident and have a good self esteem are like me, very quiet around other people. this is not always due to a poor self immage, but maybe they are like me- I know i am a decent person with a lot of good in me to give to the world. I am cofident in myself and my own abilities...it's other people that make me nervous...i just don't understand them a lot of the time, and i don't see the point of talking simply to hear the sound of my own voice ( although I am sure there are some people who think i do just that:laugh:)

 

i really find it so heartbreaking that someone would be in an affair because of issues with self confidence...often, these seem to be the people who have so much good about them and so much love to give, but fail to recognize that...it's a shame they waste it on someone who isn't available to give them that same mlove back

 

but...

 

that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and if someone can take a situation that was harmful and hurtful to them, have the strength to get out of it and then use what they learned to better themselves, then I think that is a wonderful thing , very commendable and something to be very proud of...after all we are all flawed , we can all learn to be a better person through every experience we have, good or bad

 

 

Yes...and the worst type of low self esteem person is an intellectual one. That person will intellectualize the hell out of their effed-up-ness and almost have the whole world convinced, even themselves! Such people often resist therapy and have a healthy dose of narcissism where no matter what they will find a way to rationalize it beautifully and eloquently....

 

I was one and I know many....and they're really the worst as there is NO getting through unless slapped upside the head with a brick. They will run you into circles, actually labyrinths is more accurate, about why they do what they do and about how wonderful it is and the lack of a problem that they have. It gives you a headache and you just have to throw the towel in on it....

 

Lol just thought of my most favorite neurotic, Dr.House from the show House, he's a perfect example of a brilliant neurotic! Quite competent, capable, charming and intellectually wowing but has effed-up-ness issues for days and everyone else but him realized it.

[fooled once]

I think someone saying that they don't want their man to be fully available is in itself a faulty way of putting it. I think how you phrase something speaks a lot to your mentality about it. If someone were to say "I want a man who is not going to be available fully..." it would seem very awkward and one would probably ask why bother or think that person very strange. Which is why I said I understand choosing a man whose schedule fits yours, that is understandable, but to say you're choosing someone who won't be fully available rings all kinds of alarm bells as the two have different meanings.

 

And then the matter of choice goes back to my point about choosing something consciously versus subconsciously. I have learned that not everything can be taken at face value, and even with myself as I explained, I made "choices" that outwardly seemed one way but I was subconsciously choosing it for another reason and fear was one of them. I however, was unaware of that and felt that I was making fully conscious decisions based on nothing but a healthy outlook. Many people go around doing quite dysfunctional things and feel quite pleased with themselves and their agency.

 

So for me...just because someone tells me they're choosing something (particularly something potentially destructive) for one reason, like alcoholics who say they simply like to drink , or compulsive overeaters who say they simply like food, it really doesn't make any difference as that "choice" as we usually find out upon deeper exploration is not much of a flippant choice after all. A woman who says she likes unavailable men or men available only sometimes and goes as far as to even use that term would be someone whom I would look at as choosing it for reasons that are more than meets the eye, even if she herself isn't admitting it.

 

I like the exercise of asking yourself a series of why questions that help you to break your actions down to the core. Most people never ask why or ask about 2 whys that only graze the surface; however if they persisted with the whys they may surprise themselves. If someone has done that honestly and still can come up with the same answer as before, then I will resign my position and say well you've examined your conscious and subconscious motivations and nothing is wrong after all, carry on! But if not....then to me, the large possibility is still there that this person doing the choosing may not be choosing for the reason they think they're choosing after all.

 

Great post MissB!!!

[OWoman]

Emotional availability is what I'm talking about when I talk about it and not mundane availability. Mundane availability issuescan be a marker of one's emotional availability. Not everything people do or say they're doing is for the reason they're saying and sometimes they themselves are unaware. Only an authentic assessment of self will show whether or not one's choices are in fact "no biggie" or speak to something deeper. Tis all

 

Sure, I don't disagree with that. And I'm glad you allow for the very real possibility that OWs can authentically assess themselves and their emotional and other needs, and choose part-time Rs as being best and healthiest for their requirements at that particular time in their lives, given their circumstances at the time - I've lived that reality, and I know it exists

[Scarlett77]

You are one of my favorites posters:)))

 

If I wasn't bashed so severly by the BITTER ( oh God, I said it ) others here , I would post more.

Keep being you, I take heart from it.