Lindaland
  Soul Unions
  Out of the Dating Sphere

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Out of the Dating Sphere
Lyra
Knowflake

Posts: 156
From: London, UK
Registered: May 2009

posted April 03, 2010 04:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lyra     Edit/Delete Message
Relationships um, just...don't figure in my life any more. I still keep looking fantastic (because I can, and feel I owe it to myself, and get compliments frequently), but I am simply not emotionally available, point blank, because (as I have probably mentioned in a roundabout way before) there is so much hypocrisy and tenuousness regarding so-called "relationships", so much so that I can't be bothered with the stress of it all as I have so many other things I NEED to do.

Somehow, I always knew the last relationhip I had would be my last, and I realized at that point that I NEVER wanted to put myself through that again. And I wonder, is it possible for something to just happen naturally - without all this sense of charade and artifice and antics? Is it possible to become SUCH good friends with someone that things just happen spontaneously and without awkwardness? (Of course, this assumes you're both physically attracted to one another).


IP: Logged

hippichick
Knowflake

Posts: 283
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted April 03, 2010 04:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for hippichick     Edit/Delete Message
I hear ya.

In answer to your question, I think it would take two hugely evolved individuals, two individuals so intouch with themselves that they truely did not "desire" another...

Then again, why would such an individual be looking to "relate" with another anyway...

Osho said the term relationship is deadly, cause it contains the word "ship" and ships sink, eventually.

For me, no more.

I have always been the unconventional kind of gal, now I have elevated my self higher, let go of our human need to be in relation (atleast intimately) with another and be in relation with just me.

t~~~

IP: Logged

hippichick
Knowflake

Posts: 283
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted April 03, 2010 04:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for hippichick     Edit/Delete Message
O, and by the way,

As far as keeping looking good, I never did dress for another anyway. Always, always dress (keep up my appearance) for me. Often that included no makeup, hair up in a pony, whatever, just always for me!

Was takling to an old flame today, whilst sunning, and he stated some flirtatious comment on my sunning.

I told him nicely, I have taken a vow of celibacy (which I really did today) and a celibate lady can look awesome too!

The Aquarian redily agreed.

t

IP: Logged

Diana
Knowflake

Posts: 1609
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted April 03, 2010 05:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Diana     Edit/Delete Message
Aquarians and sags are generally this way. I am both and I am that way. I do not play the game. Maybe you will meet someone of those signs.

I sometimes think friendship, if prolonged, makes romance more awkward.


Signs I have noticed (males) that are into game playing: Aries (always like the chase), Leo (you have to seem hard to get so you are like a prize if gotten), Scorpio (have to take the lead), Taurus (ruled by venus and an earth sign -- they are sometimes the negative side of venus), Pisces (are gushy and not into game playing at first, but once they get you, they don't want you because you are no longer a fantasy. Like it (secretly) when women are mean to them and boss them around, disappear, etc.), Capricorn (would never be able to stand a woman being so forward and eager), Virgo ( they'd think there must be something wrong with you and analyze why you are so available).


Libra and gemini *can* be what you are describing. Your best bet is an air/fire mix, but not aries or leo in there. Air signs don't like games, per se, unless they have a dominant venus that is one of the aforementioned signs.


Of course, take this all with a grain of salt, because it's generalized, but it's usually true in my experience.

IP: Logged

Unmoved
Moderator

Posts: 1485
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted April 03, 2010 07:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Unmoved     Edit/Delete Message
I wish I was out of the dating sphere, but my heart won't allow. Wait... I think I am out of it.

I've always been confused about the term "dating". Does dating mean having a long-term boyfriend, or does it mean having multiple, superficial, and short term relationships? I ask because I think it is the latter, I have never done that. I get into relationships, or I am alone and celibate. I don't "play" the field, so to speak.

So, when you say dating, do you mean: sharing you life with someone romantically, or do you mean: casual sexual relationships that people have?

quote:
...now I have elevated my self higher, let go of our human need to be in relation...

I don't mean to offend. I am just looking for clarification. When you speak of elevation of self to a higher level, what do you mean?

And, when you speak of a "need" to be in "relation", 1. Do you speak of a basic natural need, or a need caused by an addiction to something unnatural to the being? 2. Do you speak of relativity (when using the word "relation"), i.e. how we humans define ourselves relative to others, etc?

I ask because human interaction and recreation is a basic need, and I don't see how one can not need it, and secondly how one can grow without it. I say this as a loner type personality who spends most time alone. Even though I am content with the self, there seems to be a basic human need for companionship. It doesn't need to be constant, or in large amounts, but like sunlight, zero sunlight can be dangerous (it will kill you), a little is needed for the human to function optimally.

Or maybe, do you mean that you are no longer afraid to be alone?In which case, it wouldn't be a need for companionship that you have lost, but maybe your need for reassurance?

------------------
Blog

IP: Logged

hippichick
Knowflake

Posts: 283
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted April 04, 2010 07:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for hippichick     Edit/Delete Message
I speak of the obsessive need alot of women have to be with a man.

Been there done that. Gone from relation to relation without being really with me and I am 48.

If one truely wants to be in relation with someone, there is nothing wrong with that, however I know so, so many women who need it and not want it.

When I say elevated myself, I mean elevated myself to reach the higher me and be with that me and only that me.

Since a recent breakup and a very painful one at that, I am not jumping back into anything else, hopefully ever again. I said to myself many times while we were together, this was my last.

Course I am smart enough to know that talk is cheap, but the statement came more from a very deep internal feeling.

Looking back while in relationships I was very alone anyway, so why not be totally alone.

Can not deal with the man kind anymore.

blessings

t

IP: Logged

Unmoved
Moderator

Posts: 1485
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted April 04, 2010 10:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Unmoved     Edit/Delete Message
thank you for clarifying hippi

------------------
Blog

IP: Logged

Lyra
Knowflake

Posts: 156
From: London, UK
Registered: May 2009

posted April 04, 2010 03:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lyra     Edit/Delete Message
Well I am 35 (v nearly 36)and I don't know whether this is some sort of midlife crisis thing or what - or whether it's got to do with the fact that I don't want kids and I am very aware of that - so I wonder what the point is of getting together with a man, as in the end most of them desire kids anyway. Then again, though they can often end up doting on their kids (or not) - since they are a part of them, they inevitably don't dote on the mother so much once she's given birth.

And in the relationships where kids are not an issue...the woman always seems to be slotted into a role supporting the man in some way - often so that she has to do most of the hard graft...so that he has her right where he wants her. Relationships are an ARRANGEMENT - nothing more and nothing less. Shame that it boils down to something so unsentimental - but the fact is that I think women are given these "love feelings" in order to enable us to reproduce. Men, on the other hand, are driven by one thing, and one thing only!!!!!

I find myself identifying with women like Queen Elizabeth I and Marianne North - strong single women who obviously operated from a very advantageous position (they had the cash to do what they liked). And I have been thinking recently, why is it that we don't have successful happily single women in the news? Why does every woman, whether famous in her own right or not, HAVE to have a partner of some kind to be "socially acceptable"? Even Madonna goes around with somebody on her arm the whole time (although face it, she is probably about the most insecure of all of us, perhaps quite understandably so).

An adviser to Elizabeth I famously told her that if she married she would only be Queen - but that if she stayed unmarried she would be "both King AND Queen". I'm greedy! I like the idea of being both King and Queen! It's too good an opportunity to pass up!!!

A "relationship" of any description has become indispensible to the "must-HAVE" mentality of modern society. Whether it is with man, woman, animal or vegetable. For me, I choose celibacy because it enables me to focus wholeheartedly on what I consider to be my life's work. Creativity and concrete achievements, unlike "relationships", can't ever be taken away from one. I have been reading Seneca's "Letters" recently...it has helped me with a great many other things at the present time, not just relationships. I recommend it highly. There's one part where he talks about looking back (at the end of one's life) and measuring yourself in terms of WHO YOU ARE, not WHAT YOU HAVE. Relationships to my mind are very connected to the idea of "HAVING/ POSSESSING". Possessions, unless they are something hobby-related, don't seem to be as important to me as to other people - never have been, I don't seem to tear my hair out about them the way other people do, I just don't seem to attach an awful lot of value to them - and I suspect this is part of the issue that I find with "HAVING" a "relationship". If someone says I "must have" something, I am almost bound to run in the opposite direction.

Hippichick, I hear ya...I have a lot of Pisces in me, I think we have a need more than any other sign to give...but also to recharge.

Diana, interesting that you picked up on the Gem...I have Mars in Gem and most Gemini men share my sense of humour - at least, they always laugh at my jokes. Sadly I never seem to be physically attracted to them quite enough. My ex-h was an Aqua (with Scorp Asc) and actually not a bad match, I think I stayed with him for so long because he was so funny...and he must have been heartbroken when I left him, because he won't talk to me now. My other great love was a Scorpio - but too game-playing/ dishonest, he couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it. Cancer/ Cap too demanding, scolding, frequently feel sorry for themselves/ "give to receive"/ start arguments - this goes for the Moon sign also (Aries female gets bored and walks away - you get the picture).

Unmoved - I mean dating as in going on dates (in whatever relationship capacity). No, I don't play the field either (Virgo Asc?) and I myself don't think it's a good idea to. Where you talk about the "need" for human interaction, of course, we all need that. But I find that I get plenty of it from work, and since I am an only child and there was not much of a tradition of "family" life or family contact in my upbringing, I choose instead to focus my thoughts on the world of ideas (so I guess I would qualify as an INTP or INTJ). In any event, I have such a busy life currently that I welcome any opportunity for "me" time. I work a full 5-day week and the weekends and evenings are largely taken up with doing my own projects (and I do get a hell of a lot done - I live my life in such a way that I will have no regrets when I die). I have time for about 2 friends about once a month (though I do accommodate more if I can). This doesn't leave me an awful lot of time for relationships - I don't have time to argue, for example. I work in a mainly male office and am exposed to the quirks of the guys that work there on an almost daily basis - if their wives could only see and hear them carry on the way they do, they would run a mile. I was talking to someone about 3 characters in particular, that I am cooped up with all day, and she suggested it was almost like having 3 husbands

So yes, I am truly happy being with myself. Again, at my time of life, I don't know whether this is a biological thing...

IP: Logged

MyVirgoMask
Knowflake

Posts: 2156
From: Bay Area, CA
Registered: May 2009

posted April 05, 2010 01:15 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for MyVirgoMask     Edit/Delete Message
Lyra, we don't need kings - but consorts can be very nice

IP: Logged

hippichick
Knowflake

Posts: 283
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted April 05, 2010 10:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for hippichick     Edit/Delete Message
Lyra

Thank yor for sharing your thoughts and feelings.

Another milestone in my healing (day 12 now.)

Funny, when I was in relationships, I always did not want to be in one, now that I am not, I mourn, but I think I mourn for the (Pisces) fantasy of what could be, not what (never) will be.

Such humans we are, and I so, so appreciate being human, I AM one, however, I dunno.... seems sometimes we as humans choose awfully hard paths.

blessings

t

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2010

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a