I have read about women being tired of meeting men who are "emotionally unavailable". I typically took that to mean men who are unwilling or incapable of really being there in a relationship. I knew that wasn't me. I have no trouble with intimacy. Indeed it is the grayer area where I have trouble. Those odd amorphous spaces where you can for example have casual sex that means little from an emotional standpoint are where I have the most difficulty. And believe it or not, even at my advanced age, I need to fill in those blanks in my understanding. I need to fill them in so I can proceed as a more complete person, and so I can relate more fully to friends and partners in whom those areas are more fully realized, and that exist as part of their history or for entertainment purposes or what have you.
But I never thought of myself as "emotionally unavailable", until today. I've known it awhile. I just didn't put words to it. I've known it, or felt it, since I went out to a concert with A some weeks ago. We had already decided we were not aiming towards intimacy. She didn't want to share like that. We could have that night, because I am so much fun :-). The door was open. But I stayed the course. I knew there would be something missing, something terribly wrong, if we were to proceed. Subconsciously I knew my heart and mind were already filled, and there was no way I could give A her due as a lover.
We haven't gone out since, nor talked a lot, and so she figured something was going on. Today we had a nice chat. Things have been going on. My life is never static, nor do I want it to be, and I just don't have the emotional bandwidth for any more real people. When talking about her frustrations with men, I realized that being something of a floater, not having his life settled, not knowing what he wants, being emotionally unavailable... Yep, that could apply to me.
And it should. I'm out of the house under two years and have taken no legal steps towards divorce. No one would expect anything else. Thing is, I'm not out fucking around. I haven't the makeup for that. I'm in two amazing and completely different serious relationships. That right there is enough to make me emotionally unavailable. And I'm not sorry for it. I'm full, don't want no more. The only thing I want to work on is that "casual sex that means little from an emotional standpoint" thing. And everyone's on board with me doing just that. Don't know if I can. But dating someone new who naturally expects more, who wants me to be emotionally available, will only make it harder, especially on her.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This, to me, is the perfect example of how it should always be approached. Know what you need. Know what the other wants. See if there is a fit. If no, then don't waste one another's time in "that" way.
You don't need another serious relationship now. You do need some fun, light, friendly ones that help you explore more corners of your life. You'll proceed ethically and honestly. Yay you! :-)
I don't know why it's all so impossibly difficult, but I have to conclude it's me. I am now in the group of hardcore single people who are never going to find anyone. I keep going on 1-3 dates with same. These men are as puzzled by it all as I am, and there doesn't seem to be anything "wrong" with (some of) them either, but they can't connect with anyone, and neither can I.
This damned blogger just wiped out my comment! Fuck!
I was going to say, just avoid dating people who expect more availability than you are prepared to provide, and don't let yourself be affected by remarks that you are "emotionally unavailable." Clearly, you are not emotionally unavailable or you wouldn't have any friends or lovers.
In the first paragraph you say you know that you aren't emotionally unavailable, then later you say that such a description should apply to you. Which is it? I say you're not, but in any case it's too early to make any declarations in that regard. Very few people who've been married for 20+ years wholly climb out of that, and if they do it generally takes longer than two years to sort themselves out.
Another question that arises for me is, are you supposed to be emotionally available to everyone who decided you aren't? No, and you answered that yourself:
"I'm in two amazing and completely different serious relationships. That right there is enough to make me emotionally unavailable. And I'm not sorry for it. I'm full, don't want no more. "
Why does anything else in that are really matter?
Harry, did you see this article as a problem needing a solution? I saw it as a report. "Here's what's going on."
Interesting, the difference in perspectives, yes?
I suppose I approached it as a problem needing an answer, but I didn't consciously see it in any particular light. It could be either one. Certainly, in some realm, there is a yearning for some kind of answer, or it possibly wouldn't be expressed. Then again, for many, the answer lies in the expression of the issue/problem/thought.
For me, that latter is often the case. Writing out my thoughts provides clarity, sometimes, and may indeed provide a solution where I had not realized a need for one.
I also like to get the perspectives of the readers. They may spur thoughts in related or alternate problem spaces.
:-)
I agree, Gekko. Writing out my thoughts also works for me. I think it does for most if they give it a chance. In my case it simply helps me keep track of what I've been thinking, as well as spurs creative ways of looking at things. It'd be even better if you have a responsive audience.
In both working as a therapist and just listening to friends talk about their worries or questions, discussion with no concrete resolution has often been all it took to make them feel more clear, more certain, or just less worried about something. This has been especially true in cases of amorphous, existential questions, or questions that concern personal, non-business relationships with others. It's as though concrete solutions are fixed shape plugs for holes that are constantly changing shape.
"fixed shape plugs for holes that are constantly changing shape."
Cool expression. Thanks.
De nada!
This is sort of apropos of nothing, but I just listened to Garrison Keillor's PHC monologue and this struck me:
"You can be disappointed in love, you can be disappointed in life, but there's something to be said for loyalty. No one has ever been disappointed by loyalty."
So I am thinking that the inability to connect is really about lack of ability for form trust, to believe in the possibility of loyalty -- or the lack of desire to OFFER loyalty.
Maybe later, if something as yet not clear happens. But for now, no promises of loyalty.
I guess I was saying I don't have trouble connecting, but in truth I do under certain circumstances, and much noodling and thinking have led me to believe it has to do with trust. I don't connect easily, or at all really, until there is a lot on the line and I know I can trust a person. Until then I'm kind of spinning in the wind and this prevents me meeting people much.
Post a Comment