Anxiety’s Getting The Best Of Me

[katiegrl]

To expound more on "emotional unavailability" and Natalie Lue's writings, (I've only read bits here and there), can a man be emotionally unavailable with one woman and not another? Depending on how he feels, interacts, and how emotionally compatible he is with each particular woman?

 

I would think so, but it sounds like Natalie Lue believes if a man is emotionally unavailable in one relationship, then he is doomed to be the same in all his relationships....and thus should be avoided.

 

This does not seem fair or right to me.

 

Each woman and each relationship is different... thus his feelings will be different, his interactions with her will be different, and his "availability" for a relationship will be different with each woman.

 

As LL even said, the men she has dated were not emotionally available to her, but after they stopped seeing each other, the same men went on to develop committed relationships with the next woman.

 

Based on what Natalie Lue writes, how can that be?

 

I am seriously interested in this, it is super interesting!

Edited October 16, 2015 by katiegrl

[losangelena]

Again, to be fair, I haven’t finished the book, but I plan to. I haven’t read the part about “what to do” if you find yourself in an anxious/avoidant relationship or how to respond to certain situations. I feel like that info would indeed be particularly useful to me.

 

I think it would be useful, too. I haven't read all of that book, just the Amazon sample, but I don't think they're saying that anxious attachers are just "doomed" to always be attracted to avoidants. Again, it's about being AWARE of the fact that, as an anxious attacher, you're more prone to be attracted to avoidants, and that the way you react to them (anxiously) is a function of your attachment style.

 

I also don't think it's saying that you need to date people you're not attracted to (of course not), but that it's giving you the tools to "spot" an avoidant early on and to move on to someone who is a more secure attacher. It's impossible that you'll find every secure attacher unattractive.

 

If you can, push through the parts that make you uncomfortable—and pay attention, because there could be a reason for that—and at least skim the "how-to" parts. Hell, those are the parts I would have read FIRST! That's valuable info!

[Jejangles]

To expound more on "emotional unavailability" and Natalie Lue's writings, (I've only read bits here and there), can a man be emotionally unavailable with one woman and not another? Depending on how he feels, interacts, and how emotionally compatible he is with each particular woman?

 

I would think so, but it sounds like Natalie Lue believes if a man is emotionally unavailable in one relationship, then he is doomed to be the same in all his relationships....and thus should be avoided.

 

This does not seem fair or right to me.

 

Each woman and each relationship is different... thus his feelings will be different, his interactions with her will be different, and his "availability" for a relationship will be different with each woman.

 

As LL even said, the men she has dated were not emotionally available to her, but after they stopped seeing each other, the same men went on to develop committed relationships with the next woman.

 

Based on what Natalie Lue writes, how can that be?

 

I am seriously interested in this, it is super interesting!

 

I think Natalie Lue feels there are some men who are emotionally unavailable full stop, and others who are emotionally unavailable to you due to lack of interest, personal circumstances, whatever.

 

The entire point of her website is for women to pay attention to what men are telling us through both their words and actions, determine why we are accepting less than we deserve and end go-nowhere relationships so we have a chance for a mutually fulfilling and healthy relationship. In the end, does it matter if a guy is EU permanently or temporarily? If he is not available to you while he is dating you, that's all that matters!

 

She definitely doesn't just focus on the guy, she has lots of articles about why being attracted to EU people likely means you are EU yourself, and how to work on your self esteem and self worth so you don't desire men who don't treat you well. She is awesome, her website and the book Attached opened my eyes so much to my own actions and choices.

[introverted1]

To expound more on "emotional unavailability" and Natalie Lue's writings, (I've only read bits here and there), can a man be emotionally unavailable with one woman and not another? Depending on how he feels, interacts, and how emotionally compatible he is with each particular woman?

 

I would think so, but it sounds like Natalie Lue believes if a man is emotionally unavailable in one relationship, then he is doomed to be the same in all his relationships....and thus should be avoided.

 

This does not seem fair or right to me.

 

Each woman and each relationship is different... thus his feelings will be different, his interactions with her will be different, and his "availability" for a relationship will be different with each woman.

 

As LL even said, the men she has dated were not emotionally available to her, but after they stopped seeing each other, the same men went on to develop committed relationships with the next woman.

 

Based on what Natalie Lue writes, how can that be?

 

I am seriously interested in this, it is super interesting!

 

I think there is a huge difference between "emotionally unavailable" and "not interested." My take on the former is that it describes a guy who, for whatever reason, is not capable of forming a committed, loving relationship. I am not sure that is LL's guy. Rather I think he might fall into the "not interested" category, which is simply a guy who is capable of a committed, loving relationship but doesn't want one right now -- it's not the right time or it's not the right woman, etc. It sounds to me like LL's guy might fall into this camp.

[losangelena]

Can one be honest with oneself without being hard on oneself?

 

Of course.

 

I've noticed LL that you tend to take a lot of blame for things going wrong in this relationship—it's always I did this wrong, or I said something that turned him off, or my anxiety is ruining everything.

 

THAT is being hard on yourself.

 

I think a much gentler approach would be to do an honest assessment of behaviors and entrenched thought patterns, and gauge which ones are helpful and which ones are hindering your process.

 

OK, you have anxiety and you tend to overreact when it comes to dating. But that anxiety didn't get created in a vacuum, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with you because you can't seem to just shift your behavior. You have anxiety because you learned, at some point early in your life, to respond to stressors in a certain way. This is learned behavior and automatic thought patterns; it may be "who you are," but it's not "your fault." Acting out of a place of anxiety is not "bad," it just isn't getting you anywhere.

 

Having a degree of remove makes it easier to change these things, by the way.

 

Being hard on yourself is saying "this is my fault," or "I'm never going to get this right," or "there's something wrong with me." But you can be honest with yourself and say, "the way I act out my anxiety is proving to be detrimental." Do you see the difference? One is finding fault with you as a person, the other is finding fault in your behavior. The good news is that behavior can be changed, and you can do that through awareness and the intentional practice of new, more productive behaviors.

 

The feeling I get is that you're really good at pinpointing your problems, but you SEEM less than motivated to actually change your behavior. Again, that's not "wrong," and indeed it's quite common, but that's the gap that needs to eventually close.

 

It's not, "I'm a bad person," it's "the way I'm acting is holding me back." Because if you just walk around thinking that you're sh*t all the time and you can't ever figure anything out, then guess what? You're not going to move from that spot. As sh*tty as that spot is, sometimes it's comfortable and you don't want to move.

[losangelena]

I think Natalie Lue feels there are some men who are emotionally unavailable full stop, and others who are emotionally unavailable to you due to lack of interest, personal circumstances, whatever.

 

The entire point of her website is for women to pay attention to what men are telling us through both their words and actions, determine why we are accepting less than we deserve and end go-nowhere relationships so we have a chance for a mutually fulfilling and healthy relationship. In the end, does it matter if a guy is EU permanently or temporarily? If he is not available to you while he is dating you, that's all that matters!

 

She definitely doesn't just focus on the guy, she has lots of articles about why being attracted to EU people likely means you are EU yourself, and how to work on your self esteem and self worth so you don't desire men who don't treat you well. She is awesome, her website and the book Attached opened my eyes so much to my own actions and choices.

 

This is exactly right.

 

When I first read your post, Katie, I cringed because I hated the idea of my ex dumping me and then going out and meeting the woman he's going to happily spend the rest of his life with, as if he needed to get a relationship like ours out of his system or something.

 

But then, yeah, I mean who am I to deny him his happiness? We weren't giving it to each other. At the end of the day, whether he's EU full stop, or was simply EU to me, it doesn't matter.

[Lovelorn00]

To expound more on "emotional unavailability" and Natalie Lue's writings, (I've only read bits here and there), can a man be emotionally unavailable with one woman and not another? Depending on how he feels, interacts, and how emotionally compatible he is with each particular woman?

 

I would think so, but it sounds like Natalie Lue believes if a man is emotionally unavailable in one relationship, then he is doomed to be the same in all his relationships....and thus should be avoided.

 

This does not seem fair or right to me.

 

Each woman and each relationship is different... thus his feelings will be different, his interactions with her will be different, and his "availability" for a relationship will be different with each woman.

 

As LL even said, the men she has dated were not emotionally available to her, but after they stopped seeing each other, the same men went on to develop committed relationships with the next woman.

 

Based on what Natalie Lue writes, how can that be?

 

I am seriously interested in this, it is super interesting!

 

I agree, katiegrl. I don't think it's a fair statement either. Maybe there are varying degrees of emotional availability. Or, in my case, there's just a "perfect storm" mixture of two people who aren't suited to be in a relationship together due to anxiety, busy schedules, etc. I don't believe emotional availability is something that's always set in stone.

[Lovelorn00]

If you can, push through the parts that make you uncomfortable—and pay attention, because there could be a reason for that—and at least skim the "how-to" parts. Hell, those are the parts I would have read FIRST! That's valuable info!

 

Haha! Indeed it is! I didn't even realize there were "how to" parts until Hope87 mentioned it here. I'll definitely be checking that out.

[Lovelorn00]

I think there is a huge difference between "emotionally unavailable" and "not interested." My take on the former is that it describes a guy who, for whatever reason, is not capable of forming a committed, loving relationship. I am not sure that is LL's guy. Rather I think he might fall into the "not interested" category, which is simply a guy who is capable of a committed, loving relationship but doesn't want one right now -- it's not the right time or it's not the right woman, etc. It sounds to me like LL's guy might fall into this camp.

 

Possibly. But I would definitely consider my guy to be emotionally unavailable rather than not interested. He's initiated contact with me the past two days and has casually mentioned a few upcoming events. I'm not sure the phrase "not interested" would apply to a person who does that. However, the man has explicitly expressed how overwhelmed he is with his job and life in general. He's facing some deep life questions about what he wants to do for a living, where he wants to go, etc. All things that block his ability to be emotionally available.

 

Today, I went to lunch with a girlfriend of mine who used to work in the same profession as my guy. I don't know why, but I never thought to ask her her thoughts on the situation. She said there wasn't enough money in the world to get her to go back to that job due to the high level of stress and that it was "damn near impossible" to have a relationship. Her perspective opened my eyes a bit. So, I don't think this is a matter of "he's not interested," rather I think he's just not ready to be in a relationship right now.

[Lovelorn00]

The feeling I get is that you're really good at pinpointing your problems, but you SEEM less than motivated to actually change your behavior. Again, that's not "wrong," and indeed it's quite common, but that's the gap that needs to eventually close.

 

Very true. You used the phrase "self-defeatist attitude" in an earlier post, and that's me. I do that a lot when it comes to dating situations, because it feels like I have no control, when I do at least have control over my reactions to things. I think my frustration comes from the fact that I've been in therapy for years now, and I honestly thought I was improving. I honestly, honestly did. This situation with my guy felt like the universe slapping me in the face and saying, "Ha! You think you've improved? Think again!" It just sucks, because I thought I had been putting in the work, but it wasn't enough. Apparently, change is rather difficult. Who knew?! (sarcasm)

[losangelena]

Very true. You used the phrase "self-defeatist attitude" in an earlier post, and that's me. I do that a lot when it comes to dating situations, because it feels like I have no control, when I do at least have control over my reactions to things. I think my frustration comes from the fact that I've been in therapy for years now, and I honestly thought I was improving. I honestly, honestly did. This situation with my guy felt like the universe slapping me in the face and saying, "Ha! You think you've improved? Think again!" It just sucks, because I thought I had been putting in the work, but it wasn't enough. Apparently, change is rather difficult. Who knew?! (sarcasm)

 

The fact of the matter is that you probably HAVE improved your mindset, at least somewhat. I mean, you can't go to therapy that long and have learned nothing.

 

But I like to think of therapy as like a cozy little incubator. You're there, and you're talking to a really kind therapist, who you're paying by the way, and you're talking about your past and making connections and coming to realizations. It's great, don't get me wrong, I love therapy, but the rub is that you actually need to take the insights you've learned and apply them to real life situations.

 

That's the piece that therapy leaves out. Psychodynamic therapy at least does not really help with behavior modification, which is exactly where you need improvement.

 

Again, that's not like a failure on your part for not "working hard enough" during therapy, you just need to do a different kind of work. The real-life application is also a learned process. It's a matter of, when you're confronted with a situation (like with this guy, for instance), you can take what you've learned about yourself, and sort of mindfully change your behavior. It's learning how to have enough awareness to be able to say, "OK, the way this guy is interacting with me is causing my anxiety to spike, why is that?," and then go, "historically, I've responded abc way, but that hasn't seemed to get me anywhere, so maybe this time I'll choose to act in xyz manner and see how that goes."

 

This is why that exercise of figuring out wants and needs and acting out of a particular values system is so important, because then you're not leaving it up to the OTHER person and how they treat you to dictate your peace of mind. If a guy you're talking to is distant or goes silent for two days, you don't necessarily have to let the first thought in your mind be, "oh no what did I do wrong?" It can instead be, "I don't like this behavior and I'd prefer to be with someone who treats me the way I want to be treated." The guy either changes how he is around you, or he doesn't and you move on. That way you're not constantly acting in a way that will hopefully elicit the response you want.

 

Anyway, yes this is much harder than the safe, comfy womb of therapy. Because it's real life and there's always a possibility of getting hurt. But then, what's the point of going to therapy if you're not going to take what you're learning about yourself and applying it to who you are in the world? That's the point of the therapeutic process; without that crucial final element, it's literally all just a bunch of talk.

 

I am not lecturing you, by the way; I could often stand to take that kind of advice. Of course it's a sh*tty thing to realize, that you're not as far down the path as you wanted to be, but at the same time I'd try and look at it as, "I've come this far, what is another few steps down the road?" You are a smart, insightful person and I am positive you can figure it out. I don't think you have an intellect problem, I think you have a motivation problem.

[Jejangles]

Very true. You used the phrase "self-defeatist attitude" in an earlier post, and that's me. I do that a lot when it comes to dating situations, because it feels like I have no control, when I do at least have control over my reactions to things. I think my frustration comes from the fact that I've been in therapy for years now, and I honestly thought I was improving. I honestly, honestly did. This situation with my guy felt like the universe slapping me in the face and saying, "Ha! You think you've improved? Think again!" It just sucks, because I thought I had been putting in the work, but it wasn't enough. Apparently, change is rather difficult. Who knew?! (sarcasm)

 

LL, I feel you! After my experience with my EU guy (who your guy reminds me of soooo much, hence I keep popping up on this thread I was all "oh I have learned so much, I will be so different the next time, blah." The next guy I met who I was pretty interested in was a player and likely an avoidant, which is when I read Attached. I could (and did) beat myself up a little, and maybe I got knocked off my "I have come so far, I know so much" perch but I chose to use that as the lesson it was and do even more self reflection and identification of what I want.

 

The last man I dated for just over a month was secure, thoughtful and clearly interested in a relationship, it ended due to value differences, not because he was EU or avoidant or anything. And I hope the next guy will be secure and a better match for me!

 

Every dating experience teaches us something, and instead of looking at your mistakes, look at what you have learned and how you can improve things moving forward. I bet if you focused on the positive, you would see some better choices you have made recently. And next time you will make even better choices again.

[losangelena]

I don't think you have an intellect problem, I think you have a motivation problem.

 

And I wanted to add, before anyone misinterprets this, that I'm not saying "you have a problem," or that you're doing something wrong in not being motivated enough. The process of life application can take years sometimes. A lot of people don't even get close. The fact that you keep bumping up against is a GOOD sign.

[katiegrl]

Possibly. But I would definitely consider my guy to be emotionally unavailable rather than not interested. He's initiated contact with me the past two days and has casually mentioned a few upcoming events..

 

 

LL, I have no opinion other to say that yesterday you said you were going to pull back and back off (which I thought was SMART).... now today you post he's been contacting you and you've been engaging with him? Interesting.

 

 

So much for backing off and leaving him alone, allowing him to wonder about you (and miss you)....

 

 

Anyhoo.... he's still not asking you out, but casually mentioning events, that you have no idea if he plans on taking you to... but I suppose it's something. Barely scraps, but something.... another

 

 

I am trying to stay positive here (on your behalf) so I REALLY REALLY hope this all works out. And that he's just overwhelmed and needs a little space...

 

 

Please keep us posted!! Especially if there is any good news/developments to report.

 

 

And as always, work on you and take care of YOU!!

 

 

It's YOUR heart on the line here....so please take good care of it.

 

 

We don't want to see it ripped into itty bitty shreds due to some guy's ambivalence and/or possible lack of interest or commitment issues.

 

 

Wishing you the best going forward!

Edited October 16, 2015 by katiegrl

[Lovelorn00]

LL, I have no opinion other to say that yesterday you said you were going to pull back and back off (which I thought was SMART).... now today you post he's been contacting you and you've been engaging with him? Interesting.

 

 

So much for backing off and leaving him alone, allowing him to wonder about you (and miss you)....

 

 

Anyhoo.... he's still not asking you out, but casually mentioning events, that you have no idea if he plans on taking you to... but I suppose it's something. Barely scraps, but something.... another

 

 

I am trying to stay positive here (on your behalf) so I REALLY REALLY hope this all works out. And that he's just overwhelmed and needs a little space...

 

 

Please keep us posted!! Especially if there is any good news/developments to report.

 

 

And as always, work on you and take care of YOU!!

 

 

It's YOUR heart on the line here....so please take good care of it.

 

 

We don't want to see it ripped into itty bitty shreds due to some guy's ambivalence and/or possible lack of interest or commitment issues.

 

 

Wishing you the best going forward!

 

Responding from my phone, but I wanted to say that my definition of pulling back was not completely dropping communication with him. Haha! My way of pulling back was not initiating anything with him. Dates, communication, etc. I'm not going to be mean to him and ignore him when he contacts me. He doesn't do that to me, so why would I do that to him? I'm also not going to get into long, drawn-out texts with him either. He contacted me last night, and after a few minutes of chatting, I told him I had to go to bed.

[losangelena]

Possibly. But I would definitely consider my guy to be emotionally unavailable rather than not interested. He's initiated contact with me the past two days and has casually mentioned a few upcoming events. I'm not sure the phrase "not interested" would apply to a person who does that. However, the man has explicitly expressed how overwhelmed he is with his job and life in general. He's facing some deep life questions about what he wants to do for a living, where he wants to go, etc. All things that block his ability to be emotionally available.

 

Oh yeah, I was gonna say about this, if I were you (not that you asked for advice here) and decided to respond to a "casual mention" of an event, I would say something like, "that's great; let me know if you ever want to go out again sometime."

 

That tends to be a good way to cull out the wishy-washy types. I may have mentioned it in this thread already, but I went out with a guy once and he would sporadically text afterward but never ask me out. Eventually (I was at a friends birthday party and had had a few drinks), I invited him to join us but he demurred. At that point I said exactly that—"let me know if you ever want to go out again," and I never heard another peep out of him.

[lovel]

Very true. You used the phrase "self-defeatist attitude" in an earlier post, and that's me. I do that a lot when it comes to dating situations, because it feels like I have no control, when I do at least have control over my reactions to things. I think my frustration comes from the fact that I've been in therapy for years now, and I honestly thought I was improving. I honestly, honestly did. This situation with my guy felt like the universe slapping me in the face and saying, "Ha! You think you've improved? Think again!" It just sucks, because I thought I had been putting in the work, but it wasn't enough. Apparently, change is rather difficult. Who knew?! (sarcasm)

 

Aww OP, I see why you would think that, but please don't look at it that way. Think of it as a setback or a wake-up call/reality check that these things can still happen, but it doesn't mean that you haven't improved at all. Give yourself more credit please

 

Also, don't forget that it took two people for this to happen. Yes, you have anxiety issues, but he has his own issues too that triggered your reactions.

 

I truly believe that the right guy for you won't trigger your anxiety, at least not in a significant way such as this.

 

Best of luck to you!

[kpl]

The fact of the matter is that you probably HAVE improved your mindset, at least somewhat. I mean, you can't go to therapy that long and have learned nothing.

 

But I like to think of therapy as like a cozy little incubator. You're there, and you're talking to a really kind therapist, who you're paying by the way, and you're talking about your past and making connections and coming to realizations. It's great, don't get me wrong, I love therapy, but the rub is that you actually need to take the insights you've learned and apply them to real life situations.

 

That's the piece that therapy leaves out. Psychodynamic therapy at least does not really help with behavior modification, which is exactly where you need improvement.

 

Again, that's not like a failure on your part for not "working hard enough" during therapy, you just need to do a different kind of work. The real-life application is also a learned process. It's a matter of, when you're confronted with a situation (like with this guy, for instance), you can take what you've learned about yourself, and sort of mindfully change your behavior. It's learning how to have enough awareness to be able to say, "OK, the way this guy is interacting with me is causing my anxiety to spike, why is that?," and then go, "historically, I've responded abc way, but that hasn't seemed to get me anywhere, so maybe this time I'll choose to act in xyz manner and see how that goes."

 

This is why that exercise of figuring out wants and needs and acting out of a particular values system is so important, because then you're not leaving it up to the OTHER person and how they treat you to dictate your peace of mind. If a guy you're talking to is distant or goes silent for two days, you don't necessarily have to let the first thought in your mind be, "oh no what did I do wrong?" It can instead be, "I don't like this behavior and I'd prefer to be with someone who treats me the way I want to be treated." The guy either changes how he is around you, or he doesn't and you move on. That way you're not constantly acting in a way that will hopefully elicit the response you want.

 

Anyway, yes this is much harder than the safe, comfy womb of therapy. Because it's real life and there's always a possibility of getting hurt. But then, what's the point of going to therapy if you're not going to take what you're learning about yourself and applying it to who you are in the world? That's the point of the therapeutic process; without that crucial final element, it's literally all just a bunch of talk.

 

I am not lecturing you, by the way; I could often stand to take that kind of advice. Of course it's a sh*tty thing to realize, that you're not as far down the path as you wanted to be, but at the same time I'd try and look at it as, "I've come this far, what is another few steps down the road?" You are a smart, insightful person and I am positive you can figure it out. I don't think you have an intellect problem, I think you have a motivation problem.

 

Briefly read so sorry if I'm repeating anything, but your therapist needs to have an exit plan. If they don't have a plan for you to leave and never return I would say they are not the right therapist, especially for anxiety. Over time you may need some tweaking but their focus should be giving you the tools to do things on your own. One poster mentioned exposure therapy or any type of behavioral therapist would work b/c they give you tools to change your behavior.

[katiegrl]

Responding from my phone, but I wanted to say that my definition of pulling back was not completely dropping communication with him. Haha! My way of pulling back was not initiating anything with him. Dates, communication, etc.

 

 

I'm not going to be mean to him and ignore him when he contacts me. He doesn't do that to me, so why would I do that to him? I'm also not going to get into long, drawn-out texts with him either. He contacted me last night, and after a few minutes of chatting, I told him I had to go to bed.

 

First bold....no one suggested you be "mean" and completely ignore him, sheesh.

 

 

But to answer your question, you pull back (i.e. not responding immediately - maybe waiting a day -- because although he's texting you occasionally and making casual references to some upcoming event he's planning on attending, he's not putting much of anything else into this -- so why should you jump like a puppy and be "available" to answer every singal text? When HE is not "available" (to go on actual dates) with you?

 

 

Second bold -- I am happy to hear that.

 

 

Note, first paragraph is rhetorical. I really don't have the energy to debate you on this anymore. You behave in whatever way you wish and let the chips fall where they may.

 

 

I don't agree, but I am not the one dating him.

[introverted1]

I think there is a huge difference between "emotionally unavailable" and "not interested." My take on the former is that it describes a guy who, for whatever reason, is not capable of forming a committed, loving relationship. I am not sure that is LL's guy. Rather I think he might fall into the "not interested" category, which is simply a guy who is capable of a committed, loving relationship but doesn't want one right now -- it's not the right time or it's not the right woman, etc. It sounds to me like LL's guy might fall into this camp.

 

Possibly. But I would definitely consider my guy to be emotionally unavailable rather than not interested. He's initiated contact with me the past two days and has casually mentioned a few upcoming events. I'm not sure the phrase "not interested" would apply to a person who does that. However, the man has explicitly expressed how overwhelmed he is with his job and life in general. He's facing some deep life questions about what he wants to do for a living, where he wants to go, etc. All things that block his ability to be emotionally available.

 

Today, I went to lunch with a girlfriend of mine who used to work in the same profession as my guy. I don't know why, but I never thought to ask her her thoughts on the situation. She said there wasn't enough money in the world to get her to go back to that job due to the high level of stress and that it was "damn near impossible" to have a relationship. Her perspective opened my eyes a bit. So, I don't think this is a matter of "he's not interested," rather I think he's just not ready to be in a relationship right now.

 

See what I bolded from my original post. I think we're saying the same thing -- albeit with possibly different semantics. For me, the key differentiator is that "emotionally unavailable" is a personality defect that can only be cured through therapy or a lot of self-work, whereas situational "not interested" can change when the situation changes.

 

That said, I also agree with LA inasmuch as it doesn't matter why a guy isn't into you as much as it matters that your picker is healthy and you know to move on when it's clear that the guy, for whatever reason, can't or doesn't feel it.

 

It's helpful to define how you want to be treated and to measure guys again that. So rather than worrying about "is he into me," the focus becomes "am I into him" (and for the right reasons).

[Lovelorn00]

Oh yeah, I was gonna say about this, if I were you (not that you asked for advice here) and decided to respond to a "casual mention" of an event, I would say something like, "that's great; let me know if you ever want to go out again sometime."

 

That tends to be a good way to cull out the wishy-washy types. I may have mentioned it in this thread already, but I went out with a guy once and he would sporadically text afterward but never ask me out. Eventually (I was at a friends birthday party and had had a few drinks), I invited him to join us but he demurred. At that point I said exactly that—"let me know if you ever want to go out again," and I never heard another peep out of him.

 

I don't even want to give him that much, to be honest. I've already assumed that he doesn't want to go out again. I've already started my grieving process and chalked him up to being a slow fader. I understand that asking him point-blank about hanging out again would be an effective way to finalize this thing, but for me, that would be like sticking my finger in a fresh wound. It's easier for me to just fade as slowly as he is.

[katiegrl]

I don't even want to give him that much, to be honest. I've already assumed that he doesn't want to go out again. I've already started my grieving process and chalked him up to being a slow fader. I understand that asking him point-blank about hanging out again would be an effective way to finalize this thing, but for me, that would be like sticking my finger in a fresh wound. It's easier for me to just fade as slowly as he is.

 

I wonder now if you send the same type of mixed messages to the guys you're dating that you send to us.

 

 

Earlier today you posted that, in HIS case, you thought he was still interested in you, as he is texting you and making casual reference to upcoming events..... that he is simply overwhelmed with work, etc, and needs space.

 

 

Now you post you assume he doesn't want to date you anymore, that you have begun your grieving process, and that he's pulling the slow fade.

 

 

So which is it? I am SOOOOOOO confused!

 

 

I am not trying to be mean or adversarial I promise. But I am genuinely confused as your feelings/emotions tend to change from one post to the next.

[Lovelorn00]

Briefly read so sorry if I'm repeating anything, but your therapist needs to have an exit plan. If they don't have a plan for you to leave and never return I would say they are not the right therapist, especially for anxiety. Over time you may need some tweaking but their focus should be giving you the tools to do things on your own. One poster mentioned exposure therapy or any type of behavioral therapist would work b/c they give you tools to change your behavior.

 

Thanks, kpl. This is something I'll bring up at my next session.

[Lovelorn00]

I wonder now if you send the same type of mixed messages to the guys you're dating that you send to us.

 

 

Earlier today you posted that, in HIS case, you thought he was still interested in you, as he is texting you and making casual reference to upcoming events..... that he is simply overwhelmed with work, etc, and needs space.

 

 

Now you post you assume he doesn't want to date you anymore, that you have begun your grieving process, and that he's pulling the slow fade.

 

 

So which is it? I am SOOOOOOO confused!

 

 

I am not trying to be mean or adversarial I promise. But I am genuinely confused as your feelings/emotions tend to change from one post to the next.

 

Haha! I know you aren't, and I genuinely do appreciate your concern and advice. I think someone can be interested in someone else in, let's say, a physical way or in a platonic way. I understand that, at the same time, that person can also be emotionally unavailable. I don't doubt that this guy has at least a little bit of interest in me, but it's not enough for him to actually make plans to see me again. I think someone can act interested, yet be emotionally unavailable at the same time. I think this characteristic is even listed in Natalie Lue's list or it was mentioned in one of the many other articles I read about the subject.

[Lovelorn00]

Sorry, had to add… if anyone is picking up on any emotional changes on my part, I can’t say that’s entirely inaccurate. The whole reason I post here is to gain a little insight into this whole dating mess. Through book suggestions, article suggestions, advice, etc., I’ve drawn some conclusions of my own since I started this thread. I’d be kind of worried if my emotions WEREN’T changing. There are days that are harder to deal with than others when it comes to the ending of my “relationship” with this guy, so that might also be it. There’s also the fact that my real-life girlfriends (there are about 5 married ones) are all offering advice that contradict most of what’s being said here, so you’re not the only confused one. Haha