MLC, I will probably ignore disagreements in the future because I do not think LBSs get much out of other posters arguing on their threads. But since I got called out specifically:
You may have missed it a few months back when Scott said he had a weakness when it came to women. As in always having to have one. His point was that his weakness in this regard was more than the usual "man needs woman" "evolution" thing you mentioned. That is what I was referring to. And no one ever said he should never date again. Just that he shouldn't be dating when he isn't ready to be D'd, as evidenced by telling his STBXW that he still doesn't want a D.
Steve, the intent here was not to argue. It was to an attempt to temper the 2x4 by trying to be more empathetic to Scott. I feel disagreements do benefit the LBS because it allows them to see both sides and help decide what advice suits their situation better. I hope you will not ignore disagreements. Case in point, I did not know Scott had admitted to a weakness and that you were referring to this specifically. I clearly misinterpreted the context of your comment and your response helped clarify this. In this case, I do agree with your suggestion to Scott to consider exploring it further in IC
Originally Posted by SteveLW
Originally Posted by MLCxH
Are we still pretending that 'true unattached love' is a real thing?
I am not pretending anything. We aren't cattle. We can love someone and not be so attached to them that we want to stop breathing if they leave us (read the "You will not die" sticky thread!) As far as the word "true", that is an overloaded term that means different things to different people.
You are taking the quote too literally here. The point is none of us would likely be here if our relationships had true and unattached love. We may be more civilized than cattle, but at some level we are still creatures driven by hormonal, physical, social and emotional needs. Love does not happen between romantic partners without at least some of these needs being met. Every person values different needs differently and hence the level of hurt and anger at some of these needs not being met will vary from person to person. The advice to reduce attachment is sound but I feel we need to be empathetic to those who have a tough time detaching completely. Not an argument, just my opinion Cheers!
Originally Posted by LH19
Originally Posted by MLCxH
Are we still pretending that 'true unattached love' is a real thing?
I think it's a real thing just not to anyone on these boards.
Maybe I am jaded but I don't believe this is true in romantic relationships. There are those that are closer to true love relative to others, but at some level romantic love is need based and is only sustained if mutual needs are met regularly.
