posted July 02, 2015 09:22 AM            

At first I was going along with the trend. Sure, take off your armor and let someone see your weaknesses, that's great.

But relationships seem to cycle so fast anymore...why go through that with a person who's probably going to be transient and may just figuratively punch you in that weak spot? And then, you are going to do it that painful way with the next person as well? How exhausting.

On the other hand, can you make a relationship last and be emotionally rewarding, if you're not being totally sincere and taking those risks?

I wonder how to talk about these things with my daughter. I don't want her to get the wrong messages, trust too soon, and become an emotional burnout. But I'm wondering what to say, really.

posted July 02, 2015 09:45 AM              

An old friend of mine said years ago that her mum always said (about marriage/relationships): "Give them your heart, but don't give them your soul".

I can understand that, but how many people actually maintain that emotional independence within a relationship? I mean, it's great to know that someone has your back and you have theirs, but they might not always. Personally I find it's best that I maintain a level of emotional independence because I have a slight extreme personality - I can swing from stubborn independence to over-attachment which probably creates a burden on the other person. So I do my best to attend to my own issues and know my OWN strengths and weaknesses and deal with them, not expect another person to prop me up. You're setting yourself up for a fall if you do that.

Anyway, if someone knows your weak spot and then takes advantage of that to demean or undermine you in some way, they're not worth it really.

posted July 02, 2015 09:53 AM            

It is part of a learning process and your own emotional growth.

It can be hard to maitain a balance between these two..

At the end of the day, it's a personal choice. There is no right or wrong.
We can't always protect ourselves from hurt and if we are too sheltered from it then we won't know how to cope with certain situations should they arise.

Hope all these ramblings make sense.

posted July 02, 2015 11:50 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jo B:
Good topic.

An old friend of mine said years ago that her mum always said (about marriage/relationships): "Give them your heart, but don't give them your soul".

---

This is exactly the way I think. I fall in love hard and fast (with a Pisces moon in the 8th, I can't really help it). I am keenly aware of how vulnerable that makes me, because once I'm in love it takes nothing short of an act of god for me to leave the person. And yes, when you bare your soul to someone they can and often will throw those weaknesses back in your face when there is tension, as a means of hurting you. My way of reconciling this has been to allow myself to be me, to fall head-over-heels in love and want to truly dote on the person in every way and let them know everything about me, but also to say, OK, you can't have any kids. Because realistically, there's a good chance he'll cheat on, abandon or mistreat you, and then you'll end up as a single mom. Also, make him sign a prenup if you do wind up getting talked into marriage.

posted July 02, 2015 11:53 AM            

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted July 02, 2015 12:05 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
My way of reconciling this has been to allow myself to be me, to fall head-over-heels in love and want to truly dote on the person in every way and let them know everything about me, but also to say, OK, you can't have any kids. Because realistically, there's a good chance he'll cheat on, abandon or mistreat you, and then you'll end up as a single mom.

---

Yes, but what if he actually DOES want kids... with YOU? Surely saying "no kids please" is going to send a lot of men heading for the door because many of them are looking for long term stable relationship and children too.

Being a single mom would never have bothered me if I'd had kids, I think I would have been capable of bringing them up on my own (although admit it probably would be difficult, but I don't think I'd need a man around).

Some women have kids by different guys and still attract guys into their lives who don't mind the "baggage". Depends on the guy's personality/values I guess. Some women have a natural vulnerability that brings out the protector in some men. I've known a few. I don't identify with them, but they still get men despite being single moms.

posted July 02, 2015 12:28 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jo B:
Yes, but what if he actually DOES want kids... with YOU? Surely saying "no kids please" is going to send a lot of men heading for the door because many of them are looking for long term stable relationship and children too.

Being a single mom would never have bothered me if I'd had kids, I think I would have been capable of bringing them up on my own (although admit it probably would be difficult, but I don't think I'd need a man around).

Some women have kids by different guys and still attract guys into their lives who don't mind the "baggage". Depends on the guy's personality/values I guess. Some women have a natural vulnerability that brings out the protector in some men. I've known a few. I don't identify with them, but they still get men despite being single moms.

---

If they want kids that badly then they'll just have to go find someone else. The way I see it, if the guy is truly in love with me then he'll want me even if it means not being a father. If he wants the abstract of having kids moreso than the here-and-now reality of a lifelong relationship with me, he can go elsewhere because I'm not what he's looking for. I would rather be left as a spinster than trapped in a loveless relationship with a cheater for the kids' sake, that is the god's honest truth. But the irony is that most men would rather date spinsters than single moms, go figure. Especially ones with a crapload of kids.

posted July 02, 2015 12:48 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:

The way I see it, if the guy is truly in love with me then he'll want me even if it means not being a father. If he wants the abstract of having kids moreso than the here-and-now reality of a lifelong relationship with me, he can go elsewhere because I'm not what he's looking for.

---

posted July 02, 2015 01:03 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jo B:
Maybe he wants both. I agree that I wouldn't have time for someone who was only looking at me as a potential baby-producer (because I'm past childbearing age anyway). A few guys who have liked me - some much younger than me - were easy-going about whether they had children or not so that isn't a problem. But you can't make assumptions on a guy's motives before he's actually demonstrated them. I suppose that's what it really means by letting your guard down and being vulnerable, because it gives them a chance to step inside and you can both get to know each other.

---

Oh yeah, I love the intimacy aspect of really getting to know someone inside-and-out. I relish it, and I want to spend years uncovering all of my significant other's nooks and crannies, psychologically speaking. That is the stuff I live for.

However...

The trust aspect of "vulnerability" is where I don't budge. I can be vulnerable in the sense that I will let a man in close enough to hurt me. But I will never let a man in so close that I would become totally dependent on him (financially or any other way). I would never be so vulnerable that he could ruin me.

posted July 02, 2015 01:43 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
The trust aspect of "vulnerability" is where I don't budge. I can be vulnerable in the sense that I will let a man in close enough to hurt me. But I will never let a man in so close that I would become totally dependent on him (financially or any other way). I would never be so vulnerable that he could ruin me.

---

I agree. That's a sensible attitude to have.

I watch my waistline because I know how much of a man's "love" is dependent on my appearance. Side effect = I live longer .

posted July 02, 2015 03:17 PM            

I've been shocked by how lightly people treat friendship - not everyone, but enough. I used to be more understanding, and I still try to be - but people don't always give me that same benefit, so I am now ready to defend myself. It's my new default state, and I'm not happy about it.

posted July 02, 2015 03:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:

If they want kids that badly then they'll just have to go find someone else. The way I see it, if the guy is truly in love with me then he'll want me even if it means not being a father. If he wants the abstract of having kids moreso than the here-and-now reality of a lifelong relationship with me, he can go elsewhere because I'm not what he's looking for. I would rather be left as a spinster than trapped in a loveless relationship with a cheater for the kids' sake, that is the god's honest truth.

---

I don't think it's as black-and-white as that. Sure, you're right about the point of unconditional love. But, having kids is a very deep, innate, instinctual desire for some people. They can't help it. Even if someone is absolutely perfect for someone. I've seen happy couples split because of one wanting kids and the other not.

You can love someone and not be with them. But having kids goes beyond what meets the eye. It's passing on your genes, creating people that will replace you after you die, continuing the human race. We wouldn't be here afterall. Hell, people go through a lot of trouble to adopt kids because of infertility. And people feel differently about having kids after actually having one.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to think that leaving a person because they don't want kids equates to them not loving you enough. Sometimes, birds need to fly and fish need to be in the water, no matter how much they love each other. I disagree with John Lennon, "love is not enough".

Ideally, if someone wanted kids, truly loving their partner and wanting kids with them would go hand-in-hand.

posted July 02, 2015 03:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jo B:
Personally I find it's best that I maintain a level of emotional independence because I have a slight extreme personality - I can swing from stubborn independence to over-attachment which probably creates a burden on the other person. So I do my best to attend to my own issues and know my OWN strengths and weaknesses and deal with them, not expect another person to prop me up. You're setting yourself up for a fall if you do that.

---

posted July 02, 2015 04:38 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
I don't think it's as black-and-white as that. Sure, you're right about the point of unconditional love. But, having kids is a very deep, innate, instinctual desire for some people.

---

And those people should be with one another, because they're obviously not compatible with me.

quote:

---

So, I wouldn't be so quick to think that leaving a person because they don't want kids equates to them not loving you enough.

---

No, you're right. They could just be fundamentally incompatible people with different value systems. In which case they should break up.

quote:

---

They could turn around and say the same thing to you: "if you truly loved me, then you'd be willing to have my kid instead of living a life free of responsibility over another human being", you know?

---

So do you see why two such persons are fundamentally incompatible? Independent of breaking up, one person thinks the worst thing you can do is not replicate your own genes; the other person thinks the worst thing you can do is bring an unwanted child into the world who had no say in the matter. The childfree person wins by default for several reasons:
1) It is fundamentally unethical to bring unwanted children into the world; they'll know they weren't wanted and it's just going to screw them up. "I really, really really want them" is not a good enough justification for trying to manipulate someone into having a kid who may be resented for their existence (best-case scenario), or neglected or abandoned, or abused (worst-case scenario).
2) You can have all of the rationalizations in the world, but what you can't have is half a kid.

posted July 02, 2015 04:42 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
I have the same moon placement, as you know.

I guess I am more fickle though, with Sag Venus conjunct Neptune. I've had "love" vanish in the blink of an eye.

Is your moon trine Pluto?

---

posted July 02, 2015 04:43 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:

That faded out and was replaced by a belief that astrology could cut the risk of heartbreak, and I'm still believing that, but then, some of the greatest lessons of my life, I learned by loving and failing.

Sometimes the lessons seem worth it and sometimes they don't. Like a picture that always changes.

---