# Instinctual stackings & their relationship bonding styles



## PurpleAmy (Oct 5, 2014)

I've been musing about the interaction between relationship bonding preferences and instinctual stacking, so thought I'd try to do a poll and see if any patterns emerge. Maybe we can learn something about stereotypes.

This is intended to capture approaches to _bonding, not sexuality_. Romantic aces, this can include you!

The idea is that you vote for exactly one stacking + relationship classification that best describes your _instincts and relationship ideal_. Relationship experience is not required. Ideally, one reads each description carefully and vote for what they believe sounds most desirable (taking downsides into account), not just what they're familiar with.

*Committed, closed*: "Traditional marriage", Monogamous LTR, swingers (_this is not referring to sexual exclusivity_), polyfidelity (the closed form of polyamory) or any other relationship style designed to _only_ nurture fully mutual bonds intended to be lifelong. Focus is on building a stable singular family unit. We are strongest when our needs are met within a stable, tightly bonded group.

*Committed, open*: Some polyamory, RA, or any other relationship style that nurtures bonds that may not be mutual among all parties. May or may not include primary relationships with lifelong intent, but definitely does includes some bonds that are seen as reliable/stable. Focus is on nurturing each other as individuals through development of intimate relationships. We are strongest when have intimate bonds that fulfill varying needs at various times.

*Non-committed*: Casual relationships, no relationships, or any other relationship style that avoids or minimizes nurturing long-term intimate bonds. Focus is on achieving a fulfilling life that doesn't reduce individual autonomy. We are strongest when we don't rely one another other to get our needs met.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

This is tough. I think the best one is non-committed and we could say it's my ideal style, but then I think about my fantasies and a lot of them fall more in the committed, open style. These wishes are spontaneous and I have no control over them, but that doesn't mean I should honor them. I think one is stronger when one doesn't rely on others to get needs met and instead relies completely or almost completely on oneself. But I also yearn for relationships since I've never been in one and the idea sounds lovely. This makes me wonder how much I am influenced by the media and its romanticization of love and relationships, but I also don't want to displace the blame of not being able to form relationships because of low self-steem and low self-confidence on that idealization of love. And ultimately, even if I were influenced, my reality is this one and I must look for ways to cope with it instead of wasting my precious time figuring out where everything came from, since I doubt it will help me. It's funny, now that I notice, that I tend to look for a placeholder for my ideal that's still realizable instead of fully admiting that my ideal is other that maybe won't ever be realized. And it's sad because I don't believe I will be able to do it and to save me from that disappointment, I resign myself and look for a replacement. And that's why answering something so simple becomes an ordeal.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

PurpleAmy said:


> *Committed, closed*: "Traditional marriage", Monogamous LTR, swingers (_this is not referring to sexual exclusivity_), polyfidelity (the closed form of polyamory) or any other relationship style designed to _only_ nurture fully mutual bonds intended to be lifelong. Focus is on building a stable singular family unit. We are strongest when our needs are met within a stable, tightly bonded group.
> 
> *Committed, open*: Some polyamory, RA, or any other relationship style that nurtures bonds that may not be mutual among all parties. May or may not include primary relationships with lifelong intent, but definitely does includes some bonds that are seen as reliable/stable. Focus is on nurturing each other as individuals through development of intimate relationships. We are strongest when have intimate bonds that fulfill varying needs at various times.


I was really torn between these two. I picked Open somewhat on a whim, mostly because I'm more for individual development than family development, and because I think relationships can easily change over time (without losing the commitment side). 

I'm second-guessing if I should have picked Closed, or if my life circumstances just mean I default towards expecting Closed relationships as the only option...


----------



## PurpleAmy (Oct 5, 2014)

@Paradigm, you picked exactly what I would have based on your description. I realize it may not fit with your notions of what these terms mean, there's a bit of a subversive point there. :wink: Thanks!!!


----------



## Lunar Light (Jun 6, 2013)

Paradigm said:


> I was really torn between these two. I picked Open somewhat on a whim, mostly because I'm more for individual development than family development, and because I think relationships can easily change over time (without losing the commitment side).
> 
> I'm second-guessing if I should have picked Closed, or if my life circumstances just mean I default towards expecting Closed relationships as the only option...


Yeah I was torn between those two too and wanted to choose committed, open, but instead chose to put off making a decision for a while like the indecisive Pe-dom I am ... 

For me, there were parts of both descriptions that I could relate to, but tbh I wasn't exactly sure that either of these completely worked for me?



PurpleAmy said:


> "Traditional marriage", Monogamous LTR, swingers (_this is not referring to sexual exclusivity_), polyfidelity (the closed form of polyamory) or any other relationship style designed to _only_ nurture fully mutual bonds intended to be lifelong.





> Some polyamory, RA, or any other relationship style that nurtures bonds that may not be mutual among all parties.


Hmm...

Overall though, I related most to this:



> We are strongest when have intimate bonds that fulfill varying needs at various times.


Both my soc and sx instincts deeply desire connection, but in pretty different ways so the idea of just the family unit for "bonding" seems too limiting. In general, I feel like needs will vary over time, so I'd rather keep things more open.

EDIT: Think I misinterpreted somewhat the intention of "bonding" after talking to my SO... After thinking about it, I think I'd be fine with multiple two-person relationships. (I think I'd be confused with one multi-person relationship though. Not sure. Either way, the above still applies.) I feel so strange for saying that... It feels almost wrong, actually, as there is something special about giving that sort of love to just one person, and I understand that. I have always loved freely and deeply though, and it sort of meshes with my overall philosophy of wanting to give as much as possible to everyone I'm close to, not just one person.


----------



## PurpleAmy (Oct 5, 2014)

0+n*1 said:


> *This is tough. I think the best one is non-committed and we could say it's my ideal style, but then I think about my fantasies and a lot of them fall more in the committed, open style*. These wishes are spontaneous and I have no control over them, but that doesn't mean I should honor them. *I think one is stronger when one doesn't rely on others to get needs met* and instead relies completely or almost completely on oneself. But *I also yearn for relationships* since I've never been in one and the idea sounds lovely. This makes me wonder how much I am influenced by the media and its romanticization of love and relationships, but I also don't want to displace the blame of not being able to form relationships because of low self-steem and low self-confidence on that idealization of love. And ultimately, even if I were influenced, my reality is this one and I must look for ways to cope with it instead of wasting my precious time figuring out where everything came from, since I doubt it will help me. It's funny, now that I notice, that *I tend to look for a placeholder for my ideal that's still realizable instead of fully admiting that my ideal is other that maybe won't ever be realized*. And it's sad because I don't believe I will be able to do it and to save me from that disappointment, I resign myself and look for a replacement. *And that's why answering something so simple becomes an ordeal*.


Fascinating, thank you for sharing this. That's a really common tension, fantasizing about a commitment that you might not actually want to keep. In your case, the real life approach, even though it straddles the boundaries of the poll a bit, seems pretty straightforward. You know that you don't want a closed relationship, and you question whether you would be happy in a committed relationship. You're looking for someone who's similarly dubious, and you're possibly open to allowing a committed bond to develop, as long as it doesn't result in a closed relationship.

Many people don't consider very deeply what they want - they go more off of social conditioning. It causes a lot of needless hurt in the world to people of all sorts. For example, in my view, a serial cheater's greatest moral transgression is failing to accept what they want and build honest relationships that support it. Unfortunately, open relationships are actually very tricky and require extraordinary levels of trust, something that's even harder to get to once there's been a violation of that trust.

Start wherever you actually feel comfortable, stay self aware, and keep learning and sharing. If it's overwhelming, perhaps set aside the idea of a relationship, and focus on the specific feelings, the specific fulfillment you seek. Learn to speak clearly, to communicate clear expectations. Knowing what you want and don't want, and asking for it clearly is remarkably sexy. Now, a great number of people will want nothing to do with this, so it may feel like you could never find anyone who could fulfill your desires, but that's actually extremely unlikely.

As for it being an ordeal, thank you for doing it anyway! I hope it's given at least a little food for thought. The intense introspection is at the core of the most relationship skilled people I know; it can be a hugely positive trait when you overcome the paralysis it can bring.


----------



## PurpleAmy (Oct 5, 2014)

Lunar Light said:


> Yeah I was torn between those two too and wanted to choose committed, open, but instead chose to put off making a decision for a while like the indecisive Pe-dom I am ...
> 
> For me, there were parts of both descriptions that I could relate to, but tbh I wasn't exactly sure that either of these completely worked for me?


That's unfortunately inevitable with the way I structured this and the limits of the poll. I've tried to make that limitation as productive as possible, but it's also possible that none of these describe you well.



Lunar Light said:


> Both my soc and sx instincts deeply desire connection, but in pretty different ways so the idea of just the family unit for "bonding" seems too limiting. In general, I feel like needs will vary over time, so I'd rather keep things more open.
> 
> EDIT: Think I misinterpreted somewhat the intention of "bonding" after talking to my SO... After thinking about it, I think I'd be fine with multiple two-person relationships. (I think I'd be confused with one multi-person relationship though. Not sure. Either way, the above still applies.) I feel so strange for saying that... It feels almost wrong, actually, as there is something special about giving that sort of love to just one person, and I understand that. I have always loved freely and deeply though, and it sort of meshes with my overall philosophy of wanting to give as much as possible to everyone I'm close to, not just one person.


You've described perfectly the philosophy that I see in successful open poly folk. Some of them can be happy in closed monogamous relationships, others can't. Many have tried at some point and learned the hard way that it just doesn't work for them.

Equally bonded multi-person relationship is generally the hardest of all. When it's working, it really works, but it's very difficult to stabilize, and people who seek this often want more stability. Be glad you don't idolize this, it's a very tough thing to achieve.

EDIT: Also, "wanting to give as much as possible to everyone I'm close to, not just one person" has a bit of resonance to relationship anarchy (RA). I get the feeling that's a bit too far for you, but perhaps it's interesting to contemplate anyway. There is some fantastic content exploring that boundary, including an awesome cartoon visual about non-mongomous committed relationship patterns.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

So/Sx - Committed Closed. Married for 15 years (monogamous for 19 years).


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

There is no option for any "pure" instinctive type, but I don't like commitment. Never have. If I'm really into someone, I'd say that I was in a relationship and cheat on them whenever another person comes on by. It's no big deal, I don't need to concern myself with the opinions of others. If I don't ask for them.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Lunar Light said:


> Yeah I was torn between those two too and wanted to choose committed, open, but instead chose to put off making a decision for a while like the indecisive Pe-dom I am ...
> [...]
> Both my soc and sx instincts deeply desire connection, but in pretty different ways so the idea of just the family unit for "bonding" seems too limiting. In general, I feel like needs will vary over time, so I'd rather keep things more open.


I picked one on a whim because Ni momentary certainty and w7 impulsivity :laughing:

I think I would be happiest in a life-long relationship that is so close that we can speak of our needs freely and, if our needs don't mesh short-term, we can pursue individual goals while still staying together. I have no real problem (theoretically -- no personal experience yet) with polyfidelity, nor polyamory really. But the thing is, I think it's important for it (or almost anything) to be out in the open completely, and if one of us disagrees with it, no dice.
(Also -- it's funny, I see polyfidelity as "easier" than polyamory, which is opposite to what you stated, I believe :laughing: Maybe it partly because of the flip-flop of our dom/last instincts.)

For me, it comes from a place of needing autonomy but still desiring a very close bond. The more Closed type seems more claustrophobic than my autonomy needs would prefer, too co-dependent. I can see why it's the ideal in (American) society, but I'm not sure how truly happy it would make me after a few decades. 



PurpleAmy said:


> relationship anarchy (RA)


Ah, I wondered what RA was, thanks! *goes to read up on it*


----------



## Lunar Light (Jun 6, 2013)

PurpleAmy said:


> That's unfortunately inevitable with the way I structured this and the limits of the poll. I've tried to make that limitation as productive as possible, but it's also possible that none of these describe you well.


Oh yeah, that makes sense. It was just harder to make a decision because of that. The link you provided was great though and helped clear up some of the confusion.



> You've described perfectly the philosophy that I see in successful open poly folk. Some of them can be happy in closed monogamous relationships, others can't. Many have tried at some point and learned the hard way that it just doesn't work for them.


Right, I think personally I'd be just fine with a closed monogamous relationship. I doubt I will end up pursuing something beyond that, but it was interesting to think about for this poll.



> Equally bonded multi-person relationship is generally the hardest of all. When it's working, it really works, but it's very difficult to stabilize, and people who seek this often want more stability. Be glad you don't idolize this, it's a very tough thing to achieve.


Yeah uhhh, trying to wrap my head around the dynamics of that sort of relationship is really difficult for me. Haha!



> EDIT: Also, "wanting to give as much as possible to everyone I'm close to, not just one person" has a bit of resonance to relationship anarchy (RA). I get the feeling that's a bit too far for you, but perhaps it's interesting to contemplate anyway. There is some fantastic content exploring that boundary, including an awesome cartoon visual about non-mongomous committed relationship patterns.


Wow, relationship anarchy seems to really describe what I strive for, tbh. I mean, I don't think I can actually hold up to that standard entirely (so I do believe you're correct that it's a bit much), but it's what I lean toward and I've never really been able to put that sort of idea into words very easily. I had no idea there was such a term or that others may feel the same. 




Paradigm said:


> I picked one on a whim because Ni momentary certainty and w7 impulsivity :laughing:


:tongue:



> I think I would be happiest in a life-long relationship that is so close that we can speak of our needs freely and, if our needs don't mesh short-term, we can pursue individual goals while still staying together.


Didn't even think of the possibility of staying together while pursuing individual goals. That makes a lot of sense though and I would wish for the same thing if it applied, though I don't think it would so much since I generally desire co-dependence.



> I have no real problem (theoretically -- no personal experience yet) with polyfidelity, nor polyamory really. But the thing is, I think it's important for it (or almost anything) to be out in the open completely, and if one of us disagrees with it, no dice.


Lol, imagine just slapping someone with that out of nowhere! :crazy: What fun! What craziness! (except not actually)


> (Also -- it's funny, I see polyfidelity as "easier" than polyamory, which is opposite to what you stated, I believe :laughing: Maybe it partly because of the flip-flop of our dom/last instincts.
> 
> For me, it comes from a place of needing autonomy but still desiring a very close bond. The more Closed type seems more claustrophobic than my autonomy needs would prefer, too co-dependent. I can see why it's the ideal in (American) society, but I'm not sure how truly happy it would make me after a few decades.


Ohhh, interesting. Yeah nope, no problems with autonomy here. Probably is the difference in instincts!


----------



## Consolidated Potato (Feb 2, 2015)

_sx/so - Committed, closed (but may be sexually open). _The description for Committed, closed (but may be sexually open) describes me perfectly.


----------



## PurpleAmy (Oct 5, 2014)

Paradigm said:


> I think I would be happiest in a life-long relationship that is so close that we can speak of our needs freely and, if our needs don't mesh short-term, we can pursue individual goals while still staying together. I have no real problem (theoretically -- no personal experience yet) with polyfidelity, nor polyamory really. *But the thing is, I think it's important for it (or almost anything) to be out in the open completely, and if one of us disagrees with it, no dice*.


This is so very very true. There are several good books written, essentially, to handle the why and how of that.



Paradigm said:


> (Also -- it's funny, I see polyfidelity as "easier" than polyamory, which is opposite to what you stated, I believe :laughing: Maybe it partly because of the flip-flop of our dom/last instincts.)


A lot of people feel more comfortable with polyfidelity as an ideal, and I thought that too until I tried it. It is indeed a lovely ideal, but I was in no way prepared for how terrifically difficult to stabilize it is. I later learned that this is a very common experience. My appreciation for open polyamory was learned gradually. People certainly vary in what works for them, but as a relationship style, polyfidelity is generally one of the hardest, and most likely to sound attractive to those who are familiar and find some aspects of monogamy appealing, so I like to call that out.



Paradigm said:


> For me, it comes from a place of needing autonomy but still desiring a very close bond. The more Closed type seems more claustrophobic than my autonomy needs would prefer, too co-dependent. I can see why it's the ideal in (American) society, but I'm not sure how truly happy it would make me after a few decades.


Then the question tends to become, are the alternatives attractive enough to put in the work? Dyadic relationships are a lot simpler that way. This seems to be where things fall apart - the autonomy drive becomes stronger than the drive to maintain multiple complex intimate relationships. There's an enormous amount of communication that is absolutely essential. And if you can't imagine wanting to do that, maybe it's too open for you - there is, of course lots of space between these categories. Boxes, we don't fit in them.:happy:


----------



## PurpleAmy (Oct 5, 2014)

Lunar Light said:


> Oh yeah, that makes sense. It was just harder to make a decision because of that. The link you provided was great though and helped clear up some of the confusion.


Great!



Lunar Light said:


> Right, I think personally I'd be just fine with a closed monogamous relationship. I doubt I will end up pursuing something beyond that, but it was interesting to think about for this poll.


:happy: I feel I have fulfilled my purpose in giving you things to think about. Monogamous by choice, not by default. I kinda figure people can't choose very well if they don't actually understand their options, and there are cultural blinders at play.



Lunar Light said:


> Yeah uhhh, trying to wrap my head around the dynamics of that sort of relationship is really difficult for me. Haha!


Well, in theory, it's simple. Say you have 3 people, a balanced triad. Now you have 3 relationships to maintain instead of one, and none of them is supposed to be dramatically stronger than the other. Good luck with that. It can be done, but... it's not easy at all. Quite an amazing feeling when it does though.



Lunar Light said:


> Wow, relationship anarchy seems to really describe what I strive for, tbh. I mean, I don't think I can actually hold up to that standard entirely (so I do believe you're correct that it's a bit much), but it's what I lean toward and I've never really been able to put that sort of idea into words very easily. I had no idea there was such a term or that others may feel the same.


It's quite obscure. Someone in the poly community pointed me to it a few months ago. I found it to be a frustrating combination of fascinating and a bit useless as a term, because it's so obscure that it doesn't work as communication.



Lunar Light said:


> Ohhh, interesting. Yeah nope, no problems with autonomy here. Probably is the difference in instincts!


That is the question we're trying to answer, isn't it? :happy:


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

PurpleAmy said:


> Fascinating, thank you for sharing this. That's a really common tension, fantasizing about a commitment that you might not actually want to keep. In your case, the real life approach, even though it straddles the boundaries of the poll a bit, seems pretty straightforward. You know that you don't want a closed relationship, and you question whether you would be happy in a committed relationship. You're looking for someone who's similarly dubious, and you're possibly open to allowing a committed bond to develop, as long as it doesn't result in a closed relationship.


Partly. But this mess is more because of pride. I'd be proud to think one day that I was able to do without love and relationships. And I mean genuine pride and not just something compensatory. I don't want to feel like I missed out or similar; I want to feel empowered in that way. And I don't want to rub it in, I want to take it smoothly. But I don't know if I am going to be able to be so detached. I'm partly afraid of not committing and partly afraid of committing and not exactly because I try to avoid getting hurt, but because I try to avoid thinking I didn't become the man I idealized all these years, this man that didn't need people around him and that was content roaming the world on his own. Maybe being content in the relationship will erase those thoughts and they will seem pathetic in the light of love.


> Many people don't consider very deeply what they want - they go more off of social conditioning. It causes a lot of needless hurt in the world to people of all sorts. For example, in my view, a serial cheater's greatest moral transgression is failing to accept what they want and build honest relationships that support it. Unfortunately, open relationships are actually very tricky and require extraordinary levels of trust, something that's even harder to get to once there's been a violation of that trust.
> 
> Start wherever you actually feel comfortable, stay self aware, and keep learning and sharing. If it's overwhelming, perhaps set aside the idea of a relationship, and focus on the specific feelings, the specific fulfillment you seek. Learn to speak clearly, to communicate clear expectations. Knowing what you want and don't want, and asking for it clearly is remarkably sexy. Now, a great number of people will want nothing to do with this, so it may feel like you could never find anyone who could fulfill your desires, but that's actually extremely unlikely.


I think I misunderstood the poll options and now I think about the first option as well. I don't know exactly what I want, but I do consider it. That can cause needless hurt in the world as well. Now I'm not in a relaitonship and I'm not looking for one, so I don't feel like I'm hurting anyone trying to figure out. I don't think about this often. I have a profile in a dating website and there and whenever someone asks this question, I say I want someone independent that is not with me all the time, but I usually don't give it serious pondering like the one I displayed here (the one that disappeared minutes after I posted the first time but reappeared now; the point is that it only appears when the topic arises and that if I want to be clear about this, it should appear on its own (I should make it appear)). 


> As for it being an ordeal, thank you for doing it anyway! I hope it's given at least a little food for thought. The intense introspection is at the core of the most relationship skilled people I know; it can be a hugely positive trait when you overcome the paralysis it can bring.


Thanks for making me think about this. Love and relationships is, despite my discontent, one of the most important themes in my life. It affects me and makes me ramble. That is an indicator that it means something to me, even if I appear like I don't care or I'm not interested.


----------



## PurpleAmy (Oct 5, 2014)

0+n*1 said:


> Partly. But this mess is more because of pride. I'd be proud to think one day that I was able to do without love and relationships. And I mean genuine pride and not just something compensatory. I don't want to feel like I missed out or similar; I want to feel empowered in that way. And I don't want to rub this off, I want to take it smoothly. But I don't know if I am going to be able to be so detached. I'm partly afraid of not committing and partly afraid of committing and not exactly because I try to avoid getting hurt, but because I try to avoid thinking I didn't become the man I idealized all these years, this man that didn't need people around him and that was content roaming the world on his own.


I'm have a hard time relating to this, so I don't really have much to add. I have a hunch you're describing an SP-dom trait, which would explain why I'm so mystified and kinda fascinated. Thanks for sharing.



0+n*1 said:


> Maybe being content in the relationship will erase those thoughts and they will seem pathetic in the light of love.


Personally, I think they may disappear in the light of lust, but love appreciates people for exactly who they are. If what you're describing is a core part of you identity, not something that is likely to shift over time or when close to another, then it's not likely to have a lasting effect of that sort on you. I figure, relationships can be amazingly powerful forces in our lives, why gild the lily with stories that don't necessarily come true?



0+n*1 said:


> I think I misunderstood the poll options and now I think about the first option as well.


Do you have any suggestions, clarifications I might make to prevent others from becoming similarly confused? If there's an essential tension here for you, I'd like to make it easier for others to identify it too if they have it.



0+n*1 said:


> I don't know exactly what I want, but I do consider it. That can cause needless hurt in the world as well. Now I'm not in a relaitonship and I'm not looking for one, so I don't feel like I'm hurting anyone trying to figure out. I don't think about this often. I have a profile in a dating website and there and whenever someone asks this question, I say I want someone independent that is not with me all the time, but I usually don't give it serious pondering like the one I displayed here (the one that disappeared minutes after I posted the first time but reappeared now; the point is that it only appears when the topic arises and that if I want to be clear about this, it should appear on its own (I should make it appear)).


The only people who are highly certain of what they want in love are those who've tried things and learned what worked and didn't. Which means that we can't learn to do it right without causing some pain to each other. It's kinda sad, but also, necessary. It's really great when people try to be kind to each other about that though.



0+n*1 said:


> Thanks for making me think about this. Love and relationships is, despite my discontent, one of the most important themes in my life. It affects me and makes me ramble. That is an indicator that it means something to me, even if I appear like I don't care or I'm not interested.


Thank you for _choosing_ to think about it. You don't seem disinterested at all. You seem like you feel somewhat isolated by your views. I find that sad, but perhaps you don't. In any case, you seem to have ethics, so... good luck!


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

PurpleAmy said:


> Personally, I think they may disappear in the light of lust, but love appreciates people for exactly who they are. If what you're describing is a core part of your identity, not something that is likely to shift over time or when close to another, then it's not likely to have a lasting effect of that sort on you. I figure, relationships can be amazingly powerful forces in our lives, why gild the lily with stories that don't necessarily come true?


We'll see if it was something primal to me. Knowing me, I think I'd still wonder if being in a relationship is better than being on my own; even if I am content in the relationship and I enjoy it, I'd feel slightly ashamed with those feelings because I'd still think or have the lingering thought that a man on his own is better/stronger/more powerful (and that would make me feel slightly ashamed, because it seems pathetic to consider it just because of pride). That can ruin the mood. I even do it with my family, I think about being on my own when I’m with them, even if I love them, and I can become distant just to prove myself something. Maybe it wasn’t primal but I made it primal. 


> Do you have any suggestions, clarifications I might make to prevent others from becoming similarly confused? If there's an essential tension here for you, I'd like to make it easier for others to identify it too if they have it.


Not really. If read carefully, I think they are understood quite well. The key word here was intention. I don't intend to have a lifelong relationship (but it could happen) and I want to keep my autonomy. So, I'm still torn between the second and the third options. Experiencing different things will help me know what I like and what I'm looking for.


> The only people who are highly certain of what they want in love are those who've tried things and learned what worked and didn't. Which means that we can't learn to do it right without causing some pain to each other. It's kinda sad, but also, necessary. It's really great when people try to be kind to each other about that though.


Exactly.


> Thank you for _choosing_ to think about it. You don't seem disinterested at all. You seem like you feel somewhat isolated by your views. I find that sad, but perhaps you don't. In any case, you seem to have ethics, so... good luck!


It's a little isolating but that's somewhat what I want to accomplish. It's a little sad but I'm obstinate about this, so I don't mind much; I feel like I shouldn't mind if I truly want to accomplish it. I think the more I focus on it instead of just letting it happen on its own, the more it feels like I'm just doing it as a compensation for something. I haven't taken it to the extreme because I still have people in my life and I am still aware that I enjoy their company. But I fantasize about cutting off everyone from my life and just disappearing. But I don't want to hurt them. And I also don't want to hurt myself. I know that I need others but I still want to go through the process of losing them to realize I needed them to value their presence and company more. I don't dare for the reasons I mentioned above (I don’t want to be a jerk and I think it is pathetic to do it, especially when there are others that yearn for bonds that I already have and that I know they are good bonds; I don’t want to be ungrateful) but I still feel weak because I cannot do it. And the circle goes round and round. It's all in my head with once-in-awhile bursts that make others think I am distant or that they can see through these mechanisms and that make me feel immature.


----------



## PurpleAmy (Oct 5, 2014)

0+n*1 said:


> It's a little isolating but that's somewhat what I want to accomplish. It's a little sad but I'm obstinate about this, so I don't mind much; I feel like I shouldn't mind if I truly want to accomplish it. I think the more I focus on it instead of just letting it happen on its own, the more it feels like I'm just doing it as a compensation for something. I haven't taken it to the extreme because I still have people in my life and I am still aware that I enjoy their company. But I fantasize about cutting off everyone from my life and just disappearing. But I don't want to hurt them. And I also don't want to hurt myself. I know that I need others but I still want to go through the process of losing them to realize I needed them to value their presence and company more. I don't dare for the reasons I mentioned above (I don’t want to be a jerk and I think it is pathetic to do it, especially when there are others that yearn for bonds that I already have and that I know they are good bonds; I don’t want to be ungrateful) but I still feel weak because I cannot do it. And the circle goes round and round. It's all in my head with once-in-awhile bursts that make others think I am distant or that they can see through these mechanisms and that make me feel immature.


Yeah, it sounds like the sense of dependency you're trying to escape, not the enjoyment of social connections. I think you're right that snapping those bonds just to get that sense of independence is neither kind nor even helpful to you. What others yearn for though is immaterial, your social connections are a non-transferrable "asset." I believe we all want to be valued for who we are - perhaps that's the struggle here. You want to be valued by people for not needing them. That may sound ludicrous, but there are people who do value that.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

PurpleAmy said:


> Yeah, it sounds like the sense of dependency you're trying to escape, not the enjoyment of social connections. I think you're right that snapping those bonds just to get that sense of independence is neither kind nor even helpful to you. What others yearn for though is immaterial, your social connections are a non-transferrable "asset." I believe we all want to be valued for who we are - perhaps that's the struggle here. You want to be valued by people for not needing them. That may sound ludicrous, but there are people who do value that.


You're good at this. I guess I want others to give me the chance to prove myself that I can do things on my own but I don't want them to think I don't love them and that I won't be there if they need my help.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Not that I would know anything about it, but I put down non-committed. I never know what tomorrow may bring.


----------

