Tuesday, August 23, 2005

She said...

She said everything I wanted her to say.  And then she said she was in a stage in her life where she wanted to bounce around.  She wanted to be free to move from date to date to date and just have fun.  She said she wanted to be a dating slut, and I smiled.  It was funny.  She said she wanted to do all this without sex, so it wasn't about that.  I guess that's a little comforting, in a way.

She said that she could see us together.  She said we're both attractive people and that there is a lot going for us as a couple.  She said there would be a lot of emotion there; that there already is a lot of emotion there.  She said it would be a long relationship...a long happy one. 

And then she said she wasn't ready for that.  Not yet.  Two years.  One year.  She said it might pass in six months.  Then she would be ready.  Ready to settle down.  She said she couldn't believe I'd be ready now.  "Guys aren't supposed to be like that."  I tried to tell her how I'm not the type who bounces around.  I don't have the heart for it.

So one day she'll be ready.  But will she be ready for me?

Or am I going to lose her all over again?

And then comes that other question.  What do I do in the meantime?

I don't know.

For now, I hurt.


autumnsavril said...

You two *do* seem a little backward with the whole situation.  Not trying to make fun or anything, but shouldn't it be the man who says, "I'm not ready for a commitment right now," and then the woman says, "But I love you," and then the man says, "I'm sorry, I just can't, maybe in the future," and then it's the woman who's heartbroken.  Maybe I'm just too old fashioned and out of date, but that is the classic scenario.

I think Stephanie prefers the urban approach to dating, where just because you're dating doesn't mean you're a couple, leaving both people free to see others at the same time.  It's actually a very northern, modern way of dating, but it doesn't happen very often in the southern states.  In the south it seems that if you go on a date with someone, that date officially makes you a serious relationship until one or the other decides to end that relationship.

See?  I'm doing good so far--no advice.

Reading your entries makes me so glad I don't have to go through the whole dating/relationship thing anymore.  It's just too much drama for me.  Sometimes I miss it, but I never miss this heartbreaking kind of thing.

If it makes you feel any better (and it probably won't, but I'm babbling here), I believe we have the capacity to love many people in our lifetimes, not just one.  (Hey, I said I was a romantic, not hopeless.)  It's my opinion that there's more hope for humans than to be stuck wandering the earth our whole lives trying to find only one person we can love.  And I think the notion of only one great love per lifetime is a little preposterous anyway.  Come on, everyone says "I am so lucky to have found the one person on Earth I can love and who loves me."  If they were that lucky, it seems like everyone has astronomical luck, right?  Sorry, I'm getting way off topic and overly verbose.


rampage841512 said...

I'd say you're right about a lot of things.  I've always thought...hell, I know...that you can love more than one person in your lifetime.  It's just that I'm afraid of my feelings fading over time.  It seems like that would render them meaningless, and then all this right now would have been a waste of time.  And I don't want it to be.

autumnsavril said...

I really can't see that being heartbroken is a waste of time.  We do a lot of seemingly meaningless things in our lives, things that make us happy for awhile and then we forget them.  But that doesn't mean those things are meaningless, just like your feelings for Stephanie, whether they fade or not, will never be meaningless.  I'm sure that regardless of whether anything will come of it, Stephanie feels flattered, special, and loved because of you, even if it's also a bit awkward at times.  And that isn't meaningless, and it's especially not a waste of time.