FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Emotionally unavailable
Emotionally unavailable
Jump to: Newest in thread
Are more people emotionally unavailable these days? They want the ‘good bits’ - sex, meals out, money, happy side of you but not the rest. Why is the superficial bit welcomed but anything more deep and meaningful not.
Is life too short to be all serious about anything? Has things looking good for social media ruined it? Even on fab the comment ‘its just a sex site, its not that serious’ is often said.
What say you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 3 weeks ago
|
I'd say connections are important, whatever that means for each person, and that for every "just the sex" person, there is someone that wants a bit more. Maybe not a relationship as such, but an emotional response nonetheless.
But yeah, social media (and media in general) has played its part in making us less human to an extent |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eliWoman 3 weeks ago
. |
Possibly? I'm not sure. I don't mind if people say they're emotionally available - I'd much rather people were honest about where they are in life. It makes things easier doesn't it? I don't like when people hide/lie things to get sex. There's no need.
I like feelings. Feelings don't mean love do they? I like liking people. Want to engage on a slightly deeper level than "Hey you're pretty, fancy sticking your penis/fingers in me?".
I do think social media has resulted in this desire to have a curated image of perfection. But I like quirks. I like when people are authentic, a bit rough around the edges, more than just a dildo for the night. I like more than just sex, that doesn't do anything for me. There are people on here who want just sex, others who share a similar viewpoint to me.
I guess it's finding those you're compatible with and ignoring the naysayers. As long as you're not hurting anyone, there's no harm in choosing either. Or both at different times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I see more and more people saying they want all the benefits of a relationship without the commitment. I have a hard time getting my head round that because I genuinely don't know how it's possible. However enough people say it is for me to believe that for some they are able to hold back that part of them self. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *opeyXWoman 3 weeks ago
Dun Dee |
"Possibly? I'm not sure. I don't mind if people say they're emotionally available - I'd much rather people were honest about where they are in life. It makes things easier doesn't it? I don't like when people hide/lie things to get sex. There's no need.
I like feelings. Feelings don't mean love do they? I like liking people. Want to engage on a slightly deeper level than "Hey you're pretty, fancy sticking your penis/fingers in me?".
I do think social media has resulted in this desire to have a curated image of perfection. But I like quirks. I like when people are authentic, a bit rough around the edges, more than just a dildo for the night. I like more than just sex, that doesn't do anything for me. There are people on here who want just sex, others who share a similar viewpoint to me.
I guess it's finding those you're compatible with and ignoring the naysayers. As long as you're not hurting anyone, there's no harm in choosing either. Or both at different times."
This beautifully explained. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I definitely seek out the emotionally available. I like dates and romance and hanging out and keeping in touch. All that adds to the intimate experience I like to have with the people in my life.
Most recently I've found a date buddy. We do all sorts of fun date things together every couple of weeks and neither of us is looking for a relationship. It's really nice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see more and more people saying they want all the benefits of a relationship without the commitment. I have a hard time getting my head round that because I genuinely don't know how it's possible. However enough people say it is for me to believe that for some they are able to hold back that part of them self."
I don't think it's always a case of "holding back" a part of themselves. Rather that the motivation and desire to entwine lives isn't there in the first place. Connection, or the commitment of friendship, are simply enough for some people.
I like how there are other acceptable options now when it comes to relationships. I look at previous generations in my family, know the stories, and feel sad for a good few of them for being trapped in unfulflling or abusive marriages because to do it any other way was pretty much forbidden. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see more and more people saying they want all the benefits of a relationship without the commitment. I have a hard time getting my head round that because I genuinely don't know how it's possible. However enough people say it is for me to believe that for some they are able to hold back that part of them self.
I don't think it's always a case of "holding back" a part of themselves. Rather that the motivation and desire to entwine lives isn't there in the first place. Connection, or the commitment of friendship, are simply enough for some people.
I like how there are other acceptable options now when it comes to relationships. I look at previous generations in my family, know the stories, and feel sad for a good few of them for being trapped in unfulflling or abusive marriages because to do it any other way was pretty much forbidden."
I think I must be misunderstanding the term 'emotionally unavailable'. To me being friends with someone is being emotionally available. I'm emotionally available to my friends and they to me but we understand how far that extends.
I'm probably being too rigid in my interpretion
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I really do think it depends on what kind of person you are. I seem to be able to compartmentalise quite easily. I’ve never done one offs so have always had the fwb type relationships. I don’t think I could see someone for years without being emotionally involved. I can very easily switch it off though if it’s not working anymore. I also know that I will never ever want a “proper” relationship.
It is hard to explain as most people don’t really get it, especially on here but it works for me.
So many different people here looking for different things, that’s what makes the site what it is ❤️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sWyldWoman 3 weeks ago
Edinburgh |
This is a weird one for me because while I'm not afraid of feelings and emotions, in fact I welcome experiencing them. Sex is better with them. I just don't know if I'm really over the last person I loved enough to be truly emotionally available to anyone.
I'm honest enough to admit that to myself so I'm now aware of that when I meet people and date people.
For the most part I want, romance, passion and chemistry but I don't want my heart broken again and I actually like doing my own thing.
So maybe protecting my heart is just part of that.
I do believe though, that the right person wlll just sweep me off my feet and my heart will let them.
I'm not sure how well that answers your question! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eliWoman 3 weeks ago
. |
"Could being emotionally available (even for a short while) be described as after care?"
I think there has to be some emotions available for there to be aftercare, real genuine aftercare but it doesn't mean that they want to date or marry you. Emotionally unavailable to me means... they don't want to date? I don't know if I'm interpreting it correctly though.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see more and more people saying they want all the benefits of a relationship without the commitment. I have a hard time getting my head round that because I genuinely don't know how it's possible. However enough people say it is for me to believe that for some they are able to hold back that part of them self.
I don't think it's always a case of "holding back" a part of themselves. Rather that the motivation and desire to entwine lives isn't there in the first place. Connection, or the commitment of friendship, are simply enough for some people.
I like how there are other acceptable options now when it comes to relationships. I look at previous generations in my family, know the stories, and feel sad for a good few of them for being trapped in unfulflling or abusive marriages because to do it any other way was pretty much forbidden.
I think I must be misunderstanding the term 'emotionally unavailable'. To me being friends with someone is being emotionally available. I'm emotionally available to my friends and they to me but we understand how far that extends.
I'm probably being too rigid in my interpretion
"
I'm the same.
I don't agree with the OP that to not want to commit to being exclusive and living together means that you're emotionally unavailable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *8on33Man 3 weeks ago
winfrith |
I actually think information technology and social sites where you can share everything and I mean everything has had a profound effect on everything, relationships tended to last a lot longer before the internet, whether they were good relationships who knows but the fact you can just pick up your phone and be hooked up with people to talk to about anything not just sex I believe has made the chance to move on even greater .Some would say it's the person ,some would say its variety that makes life but some would also say waking up to someone you love and cherish is far better ,a kiss a cuddle ,someone to share lifes good times or bad times .You don't realise it yet but you need to have love in your life to be content, sex is a momentary thing and some prove it by moving from person to person so their are no ties,no come backs ,no arguments ,no nothing except an orgasm .I guess it's why animals dogs and cats are becoming so popular because they don't answer back they give affection, you believe its because they love you but no it's because you feed them . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eliWoman 3 weeks ago
. |
"My understanding of and learning to be ok with my particular needs and wants was really helped by reading into relationship anarchy."
Reading/learning more about relationship anarchy really helped me as well. Friendships can mean just as much to me as romantic relationships, they can be just as fulfilling. It was good to find out more about different models and understand I wasn't just weird and difficult. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see more and more people saying they want all the benefits of a relationship without the commitment. I have a hard time getting my head round that because I genuinely don't know how it's possible. However enough people say it is for me to believe that for some they are able to hold back that part of them self.
I don't think it's always a case of "holding back" a part of themselves. Rather that the motivation and desire to entwine lives isn't there in the first place. Connection, or the commitment of friendship, are simply enough for some people.
I like how there are other acceptable options now when it comes to relationships. I look at previous generations in my family, know the stories, and feel sad for a good few of them for being trapped in unfulflling or abusive marriages because to do it any other way was pretty much forbidden.
I think I must be misunderstanding the term 'emotionally unavailable'. To me being friends with someone is being emotionally available. I'm emotionally available to my friends and they to me but we understand how far that extends.
I'm probably being too rigid in my interpretion
I'm the same.
I don't agree with the OP that to not want to commit to being exclusive and living together means that you're emotionally unavailable. "
I don't think i said that though. Did i? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see more and more people saying they want all the benefits of a relationship without the commitment. I have a hard time getting my head round that because I genuinely don't know how it's possible. However enough people say it is for me to believe that for some they are able to hold back that part of them self.
I don't think it's always a case of "holding back" a part of themselves. Rather that the motivation and desire to entwine lives isn't there in the first place. Connection, or the commitment of friendship, are simply enough for some people.
I like how there are other acceptable options now when it comes to relationships. I look at previous generations in my family, know the stories, and feel sad for a good few of them for being trapped in unfulflling or abusive marriages because to do it any other way was pretty much forbidden.
I think I must be misunderstanding the term 'emotionally unavailable'. To me being friends with someone is being emotionally available. I'm emotionally available to my friends and they to me but we understand how far that extends.
I'm probably being too rigid in my interpretion
I'm the same.
I don't agree with the OP that to not want to commit to being exclusive and living together means that you're emotionally unavailable. "
I find it faintly alarming because I feel it reduces people to something that can be picked up and put down (even if it is by mutual agreement) without feeling any responsibility for their well being. I'm all for having any type of relationship people want but emotions will always play a part surely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
That's very tough to grapple with.
I think the overwhelming majority of people can feel empathy towards others' emotions.
But if the person requiring some degree of empathy isn't outraged/knocked sideways by, as just a very few examples, Palestine, racism and its ongoing consequences, homelessness, child abuse, economic inequalities and the misery they cause, I'm mostly inclined to think their emotional language is a little bit too self-absorbed.
At root, an entitlement unextended to others, both emotionally and practically.
They're also mostly unaware of that entitlement, which also suggests an underdeveloped emotional literacy.
We all feel poop, we all have a right to feel poop, but there are an awful lot of humans whose emotional requests are too self-centred for my time investment in them to feel productively worthwhile.
I do find a lot of time for those whose views, and actions, are broader, in addition to their own struggles.
But we have to be prepared to manage, preferably thrive, alone first, and work on that language alone, with guidance offered by others when we authentically request it.
We then make better choices about our emotions, and the more material consequences involved.
No human owes me emotional support, and I owe no other grown human emotional support.
But if their view is that ALL humans can thrive by all other humans wanting (and doing) those levels of support across anywhere there are other humans - that human is someone I want to spend a lot of time around.
They've earned my deepest emotional engagement with them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My understanding of and learning to be ok with my particular needs and wants was really helped by reading into relationship anarchy.
Reading/learning more about relationship anarchy really helped me as well. Friendships can mean just as much to me as romantic relationships, they can be just as fulfilling. It was good to find out more about different models and understand I wasn't just weird and difficult. "
New term unlocked - relationship or friendship anarchy? Gotta go look this up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Im also finding it odd that so many are supporting this kind of relationship in this thread but a guy who explained quite clearly that he had many kinds of relationship off fab so just wanted NSA from here was met with outright disbelief and faint ridicule.  .
It seems to me that it isn't so much what people want that's the problem but how and why they express it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My understanding of and learning to be ok with my particular needs and wants was really helped by reading into relationship anarchy.
Reading/learning more about relationship anarchy really helped me as well. Friendships can mean just as much to me as romantic relationships, they can be just as fulfilling. It was good to find out more about different models and understand I wasn't just weird and difficult.
New term unlocked - relationship or friendship anarchy? Gotta go look this up"
Google A Short Manifesto for Relationship Anarchy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see more and more people saying they want all the benefits of a relationship without the commitment. I have a hard time getting my head round that because I genuinely don't know how it's possible. However enough people say it is for me to believe that for some they are able to hold back that part of them self.
I don't think it's always a case of "holding back" a part of themselves. Rather that the motivation and desire to entwine lives isn't there in the first place. Connection, or the commitment of friendship, are simply enough for some people.
I like how there are other acceptable options now when it comes to relationships. I look at previous generations in my family, know the stories, and feel sad for a good few of them for being trapped in unfulflling or abusive marriages because to do it any other way was pretty much forbidden.
I think I must be misunderstanding the term 'emotionally unavailable'. To me being friends with someone is being emotionally available. I'm emotionally available to my friends and they to me but we understand how far that extends.
I'm probably being too rigid in my interpretion
I'm the same.
I don't agree with the OP that to not want to commit to being exclusive and living together means that you're emotionally unavailable.
I don't think i said that though. Did i? "
Apologies, no you didn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eliWoman 3 weeks ago
. |
"Im also finding it odd that so many are supporting this kind of relationship in this thread but a guy who explained quite clearly that he had many kinds of relationship off fab so just wanted NSA from here was met with outright disbelief and faint ridicule. .
It seems to me that it isn't so much what people want that's the problem but how and why they express it. "
I didn't see that man's thread nor comment on it. I think it's a combination of factors - a man posted it, first of all. I'm guessing not in a let's discuss NSA way but an I'm too busy/fulfilled in life and just want casual sex way?
I think the OP and the op and the first few replies can really shape a thread's tone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aven.Woman 3 weeks ago
Not the North West... |
I think people on here can be too emotional. Everyone seems to want to find that one with the deep connection, they meet someone they get one with, have great sex and suddenly it has to become more. Why?! People just seem to latch on to the first connection they make.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think people on here can be too emotional. Everyone seems to want to find that one with the deep connection, they meet someone they get one with, have great sex and suddenly it has to become more. Why?! People just seem to latch on to the first connection they make.
"
I'd agree with large parts of that, and I've experienced that the "latching" is usually a result of a lack of their own awareness and emotional literacy, turned into a demand upon the other to "fill me up where I'm empty damn you!".
There's no real hope of that working out (other than infantile co-dependencies, which many exist in), mostly because they have no idea what the deficit is, what drives it, what perpetuates it, and how to get beyond it. Which is a bundle of personal work far outside of romantic entanglement, even if romantic entanglement can sometimes be useful during the process. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im also finding it odd that so many are supporting this kind of relationship in this thread but a guy who explained quite clearly that he had many kinds of relationship off fab so just wanted NSA from here was met with outright disbelief and faint ridicule. .
It seems to me that it isn't so much what people want that's the problem but how and why they express it.
I didn't see that man's thread nor comment on it. I think it's a combination of factors - a man posted it, first of all. I'm guessing not in a let's discuss NSA way but an I'm too busy/fulfilled in life and just want casual sex way?
I think the OP and the op and the first few replies can really shape a thread's tone. "
He explained that he had many kinds of relationships with women off fab but apart from his wife he didn't want sex with them. He was here for NSA sex.
As far as I could see he was setting out exactly what he wanted in terms of how available he would be to the other person.
When you get to root of any relationship setting out clear terms that are mutually acceptable is the only way to go I think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
That for me is (largely) the difference between fwb and relationship.
I might do all the things with a fwb that I might with a partner (sleepovers, non-sexy time, meals out whatever, as well as The Sex) but it’s the emotional awareness/availability/vulnerability and more of a ‘connection’ that separates the two, along with The Feels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
'its just a sex site, its not that serious’ is often said.
.
Referring to this part of the op. I think it's wise not to treat fab too seriously because the level of emotional dishonesty is astounding. If only people would be 100% honest about what they can offer and want and others would believe them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I have a huge amount of empathy, I believe I have emotional maturity and depth. My moral compass isn't broken either. I enjoy meeting and feeling some kind of connection and spark but I'm not emotionally available when it comes to fab. It doesn't come from a place of trauma either.
I wouldn't like to feel that I was giving or receiving all the perks of a relationship without us being emotional available. What is the point? It's like playing house.. Illusionary at best. I think some people get swept up in these dates and fwb situations because we crave to be emotionally cared for. It's just not for me regarding fab.
Feelings? I have all of them and love every last one of them
I have emotional bonds that I'm nurturing away from this site and I enjoy doing so. I wouldn't have those same bonds with people I've met here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a weird one for me because while I'm not afraid of feelings and emotions, in fact I welcome experiencing them. Sex is better with them. I just don't know if I'm really over the last person I loved enough to be truly emotionally available to anyone.
I'm honest enough to admit that to myself so I'm now aware of that when I meet people and date people.
For the most part I want, romance, passion and chemistry but I don't want my heart broken again and I actually like doing my own thing.
So maybe protecting my heart is just part of that.
I do believe though, that the right person wlll just sweep me off my feet and my heart will let them.
I'm not sure how well that answers your question! "
I'm bouncing off Ms Wyld's post because she articulates a lot of my feelings and I think that I'm going to struggle to put the words together myself (surprising as that may seem to those who've read my offerings before!). I do sometimes get overwhelmed by the physical desire for sex, to the extent that it cam steamroller my emotional sensitivities and my intellectual sense. Is it just the male testosterone affecting me, or made worse because of sex (with someone else) being such a very rare occurrence in my life? And I'm not sure that I've ever experienced _really_good_ sex! I do know that the ensuing solo sexual activity always ends with me feeling emotionally flat. My body actually aches for both physical skin to skin and emotional heart to heart contact with other people. Manifesting as muscle tensions, mental exhaustion, sleep disorders, night terrors, inability to concentrate, pain in shoulders and neck... But I also feel myself afraid of giving myself emotionally to someone else, knowing that it has always in the past ended with me being hurt by loss. Though I also know that given the slightest hint of encouragement I'm going to go overboard and offer up my emotional self totally. Too much? It's always too much, I know that it's always too much, I know that it's always going to be a disaster for me and for them. Perhaps I need some good senseless shagging, but that's not going to happen because (a) I'm just not that much desired by others, and (b) my brain is always going to interfere and think too much during any shagging that could occur if there was someone that desired me.
Have I completely gone off topic now? Not sure what the question even was. Polly xxx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are more people emotionally unavailable these days? They want the ‘good bits’ - sex, meals out, money, happy side of you but not the rest. Why is the superficial bit welcomed but anything more deep and meaningful not.
Is life too short to be all serious about anything? Has things looking good for social media ruined it? Even on fab the comment ‘its just a sex site, its not that serious’ is often said.
What say you? "
I think most people still want meaningful connections with others that include things like love, respect, trust, loyalty, honesty, openness, and to a lesser degree care and commitment - people can care for themselves these days and commitment is becoming less important.
Most people still create pair-bonds, It’s pretty central to being a human, But they don’t need to include sex, exclusivity and lifelong commitment. So , Sex outside of pair-bonds is a way of having fun , you shouldn’t assume it’s leading to a pair-bond.
That’s what I think - Look for the things that you want and need, separate to sex , , rather than fucking people and expecting them to give you what you need. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
