Dropping the line vs. differentiation

[MJontheMend]

The other problem is that being a Type 7 part of my identity is liking to "explore" new identities. Like last week I was having fun being a "gambler's moll" (IMPORTANT NOTE: GP and I shall soon no longer be an item I believe because although I was tolerating the fact that he is "old school" I am unable to tolerate the fact that he does not fully uphold those values. It's like I might date John McCain and I might date Bill Clinton but John McCain getting a blow-job on the side would be more likely to cause me to dump him.) and a few months ago I was having fun being "paramour to semi-famous artist". My sister was warning me that she has the same problem because she has an active imagination and likes too many different kinds of men. However, she now believes she may have found the love of her life (the leader of her new band) although she is still living and cuddling but not having sex (mutual decision)with her last boyfriend. I do not approve of this entirely so I told her I was going to write a book for our young niece/nephews entitled "Aunt M. Has Two Boyfriends". Of course, this was partly in retaliation for the fact that when we went to Chicago for our 3rd sister's bday party last week they all decided that my new nickname is "Rainbow Brite" so that's how those who know me best are viewing my post-separation identity - lol. Obviously, I'm just rambling here but anyway my sister and I were starting to move into our new office yesterday and we were chatting about BF problems and she was wearing cute little overalls and barrettes and I was wearing a cute little hoodie and pony tail on top of my head and we couldn't decide if it was cool or pathetic that we were just the same at 41 and 42 as we were when we were teenagers. Anyways, in spite of her own stuff she did give me some good advice which was "A guy wanting to have sex with you and trying to be nice to you are just sort of the minimum requirements for a relationship. You need to make some higher level decisions. Forget about your f8cked up marriage."


Further notes: I am proud of myself because the man with whom I might have been likely to have an affair if I did that sort of thing when I was married ( we read/loved all the same books) recently got published and I went to his book signing and he made a point of telling me that he was now divorced too but I did not flirt with him because I know he is a Type 4 and an alcoholic and therefore any relationship would be doomed plus I was still dating GP at the time and I am strictly monogamous.

[Dom R]

people have remarkable flexibility to be who they want to be.

deciding "who you are" all by yourself, makes for an incredibly self-centered person. literally.

To overuse frost's poem one more time...
There are two paths in the wood. You are free to take either of them. You cannot take both. you have to choose ONE of them.
it isnt a choice between "you, or not you".
its a choice, between, "what kind of future you, makes you happy".

Except that there are a whole lot more choices to make, than just two.

Given that openness of choice, seems like a good idea to picture what you want for the future.
If that future is "I want to be with a man in a life-long relationship", then it makes sense to make that part of your planning for yourself.

if you first decide the general kind of man you would like to have a relationship with, that can then help you choose what kind of lifestyle(s) for yourself, would mesh with that kind of man.

or, contrariwise, it may at least help eliminate a few choices for you, even if it doesnt make a few directions seem like the best for you.


Also, if you realize that the type of person you would have to be, doesnt make you happy... then you may want to rethink the type of man you want to go after.

Extreme choice example:

"I want to be a pastor's wife".

"If I were to be a pastor's wife, I would have to behave [within these parameters] way, to mesh with a pastor's life".

"I dont want to behave that way...I think I need to reevaluate the whole 'pastor's wife' thing..."

Alternatively, in addition to how choice of a type of man, may influence the type of person you need to be.. there's the whole "where am I looking" issue.

To reuse the prior example:

"I still want to be a pastor's wife.
Am I going to have the most likely success in attracting one, by participating in the weekly wet t-shirt contest at my local bar? or by going to church functions and activities? Hmmm... methinks the bar is probably a bad idea.

I'm also probably going to have to KEEP GOING to church functions and activities, so I'd better be happy with that sort of thing if that's what I really want.
"


"pastor's wife" is an obviously extreme example, chosen for ease of contrast. But hopefully, you can abstract the point.
If you want a guy who "loves the great outdoors", you dont spend the next year of your life becoming proficient at video games in your local poolhall/bowling alley/whatever. It makes more sense to go join a rod & gun club or something.

If you are trying to attract a guy based primarily on your looks... you're going to get a guy... who is driven by looks.
This does not seem to be a good strategy to, for example, end up with a guy who is looking for a long term relationship with someone to grow old and wrinkly with. The kind of guy who will stay with you if you happen to have a disfiguring accident. Or just happen to look less than your current self in 10 years.

if you are actively "wanting a relationship", then I think that this is the kind of thinking that makes sense.

If you are NOT "looking for a long term relationship" like that... then it makes sense to just focus on you and what you enjoy... and see if what you enjoy at the moment, just happens to draw in a guy that you are interested in.

the only trouble with that approach is.. there are a whole lot of activities that explicitly draw in bad choices. So even if you "enjoy" them... it doesnt make sense to continue those kinds of activities.

So... there's the more detailed explaination of what I said, and why.

[Dom R]

Oops. posting overlap. my previous post, is missing the quote it is replying to: it was a reply to the earlier post.
For clarity, it was in response to the following:

First, decide who you are. Then be that and you'll find the sort of man that appeals to.

Side comment/quote: MJ, you wrote:

... that's how those who know me best are viewing my post-separation identity ...

[...]if I did that sort of thing when I was married [....]

So, which is it now?
Are you fully, legally divorced now?
or still "separated"?

[MJontheMend]

I appreciate your POV. Unfortunately, most scientific evidence shows that men do not choose women based on compatibility of interests. However, that does not mean that I should not consider such an important aspect of a successful relationship. All I am saying is that if I want a man who loves the great outdoors, it is a scientific fact that I am more likely to get his interest if I show up for the day hike in an outfit that emphasizes my waist to hip ratio and it is a psychological fact that he will find me more attractive if I "let" him do the hike equivalent of "holding the door open" for me. Just like he is more likely to get my interest if he shows some biceps and does something manly. Actually, I probably need to start hanging out in weight rooms because I'm pretty much sexually addicted to men who can pick up 160 lbs. now. Plus I really did like the fact that GP was into working out because it was encouraging to me. Plus there has to be some link between working out and being more sexually fit (unless you take steroids, of course). So probably what I should do is hang out at a gym and read on the machines and then if somebody who looks like he could lift 160 lbs. makes an intelligent comment to me about my book it will be golden. I actually think that it will be an overall good move for me to start dating men who are really muscular because then they can have really sweet personalities and still seem "top" like to me via the TeddyBearInALeatherJacket effect.

[MJontheMend]

So, which is it now?
Are you fully, legally divorced now?
or still "separated"?

I don't give a flying fig about the legal stuff and I was never religiously married. I should be divorced by now but I'm not due to financial entanglements my 2bx abandoned. I considered myself morally divorced the day my 2bx informed me that he was not willing to meet any reasonable marital commitments and I asked him to leave. I haven't had sex with him since then (although he tried several times) and I have zero intention to have sex with him in the future.

[Dom R]

I appreciate your POV. Unfortunately, most scientific evidence shows that men do not choose women based on compatibility of interests.

what "scientific evidence" are you going by?

and are you claiming that looks are their ONLY selector?
Or just "primary" selector?

Actually, I probably need to start hanging out in weight rooms because I'm pretty much sexually addicted to men who can pick up 160 lbs.

interesting... it sounds like you may be falling into the old "love languages" trap, but with a new twist.

Old way: "I really like acts of service. I'm going to show my husband i love him by doing LOTS, and LOTS, of acts of service, because that's what *I* value"

(your seemingly new way): I've decided that the #1 factor in my choice of a new man, is how much he can "lift". Physique/looks are very important to me. Therefore, they must be important to men, too!

Call me an optimist, but I think that it is entirely possible, that there are men out there in the gym, who value their OWN body a lot... but may not neccessarily think that "woman who works out 7 days a week", is their primary selector to choose a woman to date.

but then again, if you're going to be the agressive woman "hunter", then I suppose it makes sense to go where the most "prey" lurks...

I actually think that it will be an overall good move for me to start dating men who are really muscular because then they can have really sweet personalities and still seem "top" like to me via the TeddyBearInALeatherJacket effect.

Iiiinteresting.
So, you really are saying, "looks/physique is my #1 selector.
Sexual "spark" is paramount. After that, then I'll start looking for 'sweet'"


You're looking for "mr. right now", instead of "mr. 20 year relationship", then?

Especially in this day and age, I would be surprised if any relationship selected primarily for sex, lasts longer than a year or two. Especially when the woman is the aggressor.
Stereotypically, its "men go looking for sex, women go looking for love, and they merge somewhere inbetween".
But if both are looking for sex... aint nothing to it.

I make no excuses that there are plenty of men "looking for sex". and they choose a sex partner based on looks.

But men looking for a long-term relationship... Intelligent ones, anyways... have more on their minds.

[Dom R]

So, which is it now?
Are you fully, legally divorced now?
or still "separated"?

I don't give a flying fig about the legal stuff and I was never religiously married. I should be divorced by now but I'm not due to financial entanglements my 2bx abandoned. I considered myself morally divorced the day my 2bx informed me that he was not willing to meet any reasonable marital commitments and I asked him to leave.

so in other words, you are actually still married.

I haven't had sex with him since then (although he tried several times) and I have zero intention to have sex with him in the future.

You seem to be of the opinion, that a long term relationship, is solely defined in terms of "are the two people having sex".

I would suggest that isnt a very meaningful way to frame a long term relationshiop. Whether it be reguarding your current husband, or any future mate.

'cause the minute your mate is no longer attracted to you... then by your own terms, there is no longer any commitment to you.

[Burgbud]

deciding "who you are" all by yourself, makes for an incredibly self-centered person. literally.

Which is probably the healthiest and most giving way to be. I don't know that it's feasible in the real world, with real human beings, but it's something to strive for.

[Lillieperl]

I'd still like a response to my comments on your "I feel homeless" post.

And don't discount Dom's point... you are still married, and you might not be able to help that that is messing with your mind. You AREN'T really free to enter into an LTR with anyone.

[SouthernGirl]

In the interest of science, I had sex with my now-husband on the first date and he (gasp) married me. He likes the way I look, but he thinks shared interests are more important.

I dress pretty conservatively. Do you think I tricked him? *interested look*

I'm also strictly monogamous. Who'da thunk.

Mojo, if the guy you're with is intelligent he'll realize your not a "slut" no matter how you dress, or when you have sex with him. Your personality and your track record are pretty solid. No, you'd probably not be a good match for a conservative Christian (neither would I) but you'd not be a good match for him in other areas, so it's just as well.

I personally think Burgbud's advice is pretty good. I also think Don may have a point that you'll have a much clearer head once you're legally divorced. Not for any moral reasons, but because all divorced people I know say that it's different to actually see it on paper. I don't mean you should stop dating, or save yourself, or anything like that, just cut yourself some slack. These things take time.