What makes a guy want to commit to one woman and pursue relationship?

Charizard

smacl wrote: »

When you talk about commitment and cheating, this implies adherence to an agreed set of rules. Maybe ask yourself where these rules come from, and who they apply to? Perhaps not every long term relationship works on the same basis. To me it all seems a bit furtive.

I think youre trying to paint youre relationship as different to others, which maybe back in the day it was. But from my reading of it your relationship is pretty common place now. I 100% understand not every long term relationship works the same, thats pretty obvious, you see men and women in abusive relationships over 30 years long the same way you see perfectly nice people separate after a short period. You seem to see yourself as a rule breaker, I dont Im sorry, I see a lot of condescension tbh like you think you have a better relationship when you are well living in a relationship exactly like everyone else. Married to your long term partner have kids, as you said yourself two companies set up with her. Nothing about it is well any different.
Ps Im not doubting your happiness etc, all Im saying is I dont see it as being any way different to other long term relationships outside minute details
Like I said I think maybe its our age differences, as well when it comes to sex and religion that certainly doesnt apply to my generation where it 100% applied to yours

Speedwell

Charizard wrote: »

I think youre trying to paint youre relationship as different to others, which maybe back in the day it was. But from my reading of it your relationship is pretty common place now. I 100% understand not every long term relationship works the same, thats pretty obvious, you see men and women in abusive relationships over 30 years long the same way you see perfectly nice people separate after a short period. You seem to see yourself as a rule breaker, I dont Im sorry, I see a lot of condescension tbh like you think you have a better relationship when you are well living in a relationship exactly like everyone else. Married to your long term partner have kids, as you said yourself two companies set up with her. Nothing about it is well any different.
Ps Im not doubting your happiness etc, all Im saying is I dont see it as being any way different to other long term relationships outside minute details
Like I said I think maybe its our age differences, as well when it comes to sex and religion that certainly doesnt apply to my generation where it 100% applied to yours

Geeze, what generation are you from, the Greatest Generation? My husband and I are about the same age as smacl and his. I know people old enough to be my parents, and my grandmother knew people in her generation, who were long term partners without having been "married in the sight of God and man". In fact, my own mother was in one for years, as was I in the past. I certainly don't see the current crop of 20-somethings as feeling at all obliged to toe the official line or, for that matter, to define a line for other people to toe. Unless they're religious. Yeah, let's leave religion completely out of this (which is a good idea on the whole anyway; religion does not define a relationship and frankly never has; the individual partners, who may happen to be religious, do). In fact, I am not sure who hired you to define "normal" for any relationship or generation, or what threatens you so about other people's personal choices that you have to decide they fit your own comfort zone, or why you feel condescended to just because someone else is happy.

smacl

@Charizard, you could well be right, I'm certainly in no position to talk about how most modern relationships work in this country because I'm not privy to them. If you re-read our conversation it is largely subjective on my part, and where it deviates from this it is reaction to your statements on how my relationship works on the basis of general notions you declare but don't describe with regard to commitment and cheating. If this comes across as condescending so be it.

Charizard

Speedwell wrote: »

Geeze, what generation are you from, the Greatest Generation? My husband and I are about the same age as smacl and his. I know people old enough to be my parents, and my grandmother knew people in her generation, who were long term partners without having been "married in the sight of God and man". In fact, my own mother was in one for years, as was I in the past. I certainly don't see the current crop of 20-somethings as feeling at all obliged to toe the official line or, for that matter, to define a line for other people to toe. Unless they're religious. Yeah, let's leave religion completely out of this (which is a good idea on the whole anyway; religion does not define a relationship and frankly never has; the individual partners, who may happen to be religious, do). In fact, I am not sure who hired you to define "normal" for any relationship or generation, or what threatens you so about other people's personal choices that you have to decide they fit your own comfort zone, or why you feel condescended to just because someone else is happy.

Im not trying to define anything, he mentioned religion and him being raised by atheists, I certainly dont think my generation is the greatest generation, but religion has less influence on us than previous times, this is hardly in question.
I am not trying to define normal at all, Im trying to understand his view which seems to be that his relationship is superior because it doesnt go by defined rules, when everything he says is pretty much well an every day relationship.
Im talking about commitment not religion two totally different things

Charizard

smacl wrote: »

@Charizard, you could well be right, I'm certainly in no position to talk about how most modern relationships work in this country because I'm not privy to them. If you re-read our conversation it is largely subjective on my part, and where it deviates from this it is reaction to your statements on how my relationship works on the basis of general notions you declare but don't describe with regard to commitment and cheating. If this comes across as condescending so be it.

How would you describe commitment, it didnt come across as subjective at all hence why I keep asking questions. Like I said I read your relationship as maybe different to back in the day but really every day these days.
I did explain cheating and you went off track talking about religion where as for me its loyalty

Speedwell

Charizard wrote: »

Im not trying to define anything, he mentioned religion and him being raised by atheists, I certainly dont think my generation is the greatest generation, but religion has less influence on us than previous times, this is hardly in question.
I am not trying to define normal at all, Im trying to understand his view which seems to be that his relationship is superior because it doesnt go by defined rules, when everything he says is pretty much well an every day relationship.
Im talking about commitment not religion two totally different things

OK, the "Greatest Generation" is a term for people of the age to have fought in WWII; you might not have heard it. Sorry.

I think that the formula that people think of as an "every day" or conventional relationship is right out of Victorian novels and was not the norm even at that time. If smacl's relationship fits that formula so well that you are surprised how conventional it is (and I'm not saying it does since I know very little about it), then it is probably an exception!

Charizard

Speedwell wrote: »

OK, the "Greatest Generation" is a term for people of the age to have fought in WWII; you might not have heard it. Sorry.

I think that the formula that people think of as an "every day" or conventional relationship is right out of Victorian novels and was not the norm even at that time. If smacl's relationship fits that formula so well that you are surprised how conventional it is (and I'm not saying it does since I know very little about it), then it is probably an exception!

Im aware of the greatest generation, I presumed you were having a dig, sorry!

Thats the thing, I honestly dont know anyone who has that kinda relationship or who displays it as a outside front. Like I know plenty of people who had a big white wedding but just the same amount who arent married or married similar to myself or Smacl.
I dont see a relationship these days being victorian novel type at all, which was my point from the very start which he took affront to. From the start I merely asked how was his different when all the facts state its not

smacl

Charizard wrote: »

How would you describe commitment, it didnt come across as subjective at all hence why I keep asking questions.

From Google

commitment
kəˈmɪtm(ə)nt/Submit
noun
1. the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc.
2. an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary

Definition of commitment wrote:

Simple Definition of commitment]
: a promise to do or give something
: a promise to be loyal to someone or something

I'd say the above pretty much agrees with my understanding of commitment in this context, in that it is agreeing to certain future behaviour, often publicly at a wedding via vows. My understanding on cheating would be to failing to behave in the way you committed to, specifically by having sex with people other than your partner. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but most relationships are largely monogamous anyway, so what's with deal with making a public statement about commitment in front of an invited audience? Also why the obsessive concern with who's cheating on who? Maybe too much Big Brother and Gogglebox going on.

Charizard

smacl wrote: »

From Google






I'd say the above pretty much agrees with my understanding of commitment in this context, in that it is agreeing to certain future behaviour, often publicly at a wedding via vows. My understanding on cheating would be to failing to behave in the way you committed to, specifically by having sex with people other than your partner. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but most relationships are largely monogamous anyway, so what's with deal with making a public statement about commitment in front of an invited audience? Also why the obsessive concern with who's cheating on who? Maybe too much Big Brother and Gogglebox going on.

Pretty much you bolded the parts you understand as commitment and I understand it as the two you didnt bold
Youre reading to much into cheating it was just the easiest example each time youve gone off track with it and then continue to finish with a little bit of condescension and superior attitude, which tbh there is no need for
Im going to leave it with this, Im sorry if I dont read your relationship as really anything different, you may want to think there is, but well the evidence has shown there isnt. Feel free to post a random rant about religion,sex or how enlightened you are if you wish, I feel you havent advanced at all from your first reply

smacl

Charizard wrote: »

Pretty much you bolded the parts you understand as commitment and I understand it as the two you didnt bold
Youre reading to much into cheating it was just the easiest example each time youve gone off track with it and then continue to finish with a little bit of condescension and superior attitude, which tbh there is no need for
Im going to leave it with this, Im sorry if I dont read your relationship as really anything different, you may want to think there is, but well the evidence has shown there isnt. Feel free to post a random rant about religion,sex or how enlightened you are if you wish, I feel you havent advanced at all from your first reply

Right. Firstly it was you who brought the notion of cheating in the context of commitment into this discussion, from what I gather to illustrate what you meant by commitment. Secondly you've so far referred to me as condescending, having a superior attitude, and in denial. Thirdly, you're the only one who has drawn comparisons between my relationship and any others. Lastly it is you who seems to be taking the huff because I disagree with your presumption that you and I are of the same mind, where clearly we're not. Why???

Charizard

smacl wrote: »

Right. Firstly it was you who brought the notion of cheating in the context of commitment into this discussion, from what I gather to illustrate what you meant by commitment. Secondly you've so far referred to me as condescending, having a superior attitude, and in denial. Thirdly, you're the only one who has drawn comparisons between my relationship and any others. Lastly it is you who seems to be taking the huff because I disagree with your presumption that you and I are of the same mind, where clearly we're not. Why???

Im not throwing a huff, I think you are trying to create yourself as something special and different where you are pretty much the same. Anyways as you said we clearly dont agree and I have already came to the conclusion that I was wrong in thinking we thought the same, clearly youre relationship is different and your thinking about cheating is all related to the church. Anyways like I said this is pointless

smacl

Charizard wrote: »

I think you are trying to create yourself as something special and different where you are pretty much the same.

The same as what or whom? My point is simply that people are very different from one another, as are the relationships they enjoy. You seem overly concerned with people being the same, and relationships being the same, but even in this short conversation which started with your suggestion that we share the same views it is evidently not the case.

Wibbs

Charizard wrote: »

Anyways like I said this is pointless

Indeed, so can we all get back on track and on topic please? This side road is a cul de sac going nowhere.

Elliott S

Augeo wrote: »

I firmly believe discontent is a part of human nature, I don't think many people are really happy to stay still. Acceptance and happiness are not the same

Very true, I think it's the default in most people, which is why I think the ability to be present in the moment is an admirable trait in anyone! Ambition is great, but being able to stand still, look around you and appreciate all the good things that you have every once in a while is very healthy, in my opinion. The best physical manifestation of this for me is sliding down a hill on a toboggan or down a water slide. Just pure in the moment excitement and joy. Life should occasionally be like a ride down a water slide!

smacl

Elliott S wrote: »

Very true, I think it's the default in most people, which is why I think the ability to be present in the moment is an admirable trait in anyone! Ambition is great, but being able to stand still, look around you and appreciate all the good things that you have every once in a while is very healthy, in my opinion. The best physical manifestation of this for me is sliding down a hill on a toboggan or down a water slide. Just pure in the moment excitement and joy. Life should occasionally be like a ride down a water slide!

Absolutely! Stuff like tearing down a hill on a bike half in fear of your life, or jumping off a pier into the sea never gets old and is all too easy miss out on in later life. Simple things that keeps the juices flowing. I reckon if the OPs friends asked their prospective boyfriends away for an adventure holiday or two, maybe the odd gig, or the like they would be viewed very differently. Myself and the OH did quite a few years of just having a laugh and seeing the world before having kids, and plan to get back to it now the kids are a bit older. This notion of six weeks and then considering commitment (whatever that does or doesn't mean) sounds a bit creepy, and as per Wibbs earlier post, moving to the 'burbs does very much seem like entering a half-life where hopes and dreams die a slow and lingering death.

LegacyUser

Op here. I guess what I was getting at in my original post was I was curious as to the factors or traits in a girl that makes a guy want to pursue a relationship with her. I think everyone will say there have been times in their life when they have been seeing lovely lads/girls and things were very good between them but when push came to shove and the time came to be in a relationship or stop seeing each other, one or the other person wasn't into it and things ended. I give 6 or 7 weeks as time frame as this seems to be the experience of friends of mine when they are seeing a guy. Everything is going great and then he begins to "withdraw", lack of contact or not as keen to meet up and the girl asks what's the story or where his feelings are at. More often than not at this stage things have ended.
I've started seeing somebody new myself and I definitely wouldn't be putting a time frame on things and we are just enjoying where we are at the moment. I'm someone who is interested in how people's minds work and why they act they way they do etc. Just had me wondering was there something my friends were "missing" that these guys didn't want a relationship with them. Or is it a case of chemistry being absent? Like what's the difference between the nice girl you are seeing for a while and don't want a relationship with and the nice girl you're seeing for a while that makes you excited to spend further time together and be in a relationship? Hope all that makes sense.

LegacyUser

I get what people are saying that 6 or so weeks is probably a bit soon for a commitment relationship wise but it just so happened in the three cases I know of that it was around this time where things changed between the guy and the girl around this time and she felt compelled to ask what was the story between them. I don't think any of my friends were pushing for a commitment, just maybe where he stood in his feelings about them. I guess when things changed they started to question things, and by change I mean major decrease in contact, not being as enthusiastic towards dates etc. It was this that prompted the girls to ask what's going on, not thinking oh we've been seeing each other 6 or 7 weeks now we have to be in a relationship. In all but one of the cases they were prompted to ask the guy what was going on as there was a change between them. In the other case it was a little over a month I think and the guy ended it saying she was a lovely girl but didn't see it going anywhere.

I guess my curiosity comes from wondering what's the difference between a guy being happy to meet up with a girl for a number of weeks/months and then when it comes down to it doesn't want a relationship, and a guy who is seeing a girl for a while and can't wait for it to become a relationship as he is really interested in her? We've all seen it where someone ends things with you saying they don't see a relationship or they're not sure about things going any further even though in your head things are going great. Is it a matter of timing? Or is it simply a matter of attraction/chemistry? Is there specific traits that make the difference between the girl who he is happy to see for a few weeks/months and not want a relationship and the girl he is happy to see but is excited for things to progress further into a relationship?

ancapailldorcha

OP, I've approved your posts but you'll need to register for an account if you'd like to keep posting as this isn't what anonymous posting is for.

Jamrajmasy

I don't you can make such a broad categorisation of "a guy". Men are of very different value in the dating 'market'. The trouble is, the type of men women want don't want them back as they can 'play the field' easier and generally have other things going on in their lives, and the type of men who would want to settle down as they've less options and generally less going on in life in general, women don't want them. For a man when you've not got much going for you, that is when you want a woman, but having things going for you is the criteria for being able to get a woman. So it's catch 22.