Discussion » Dating & Romance » the longer you have been single, the less you capa

  • Winnie
    Winnie wrote:
    <p>So I heard this on the radio today and I just cant agree with it more. it says:</p> <p>the longer someone's been single, the less they are able to offer love, feel love, and less they are romantic and caring. whats worse, they have growing expectation of their partner.&nbsp;</p> <p>well, you can say the expectation thing is because of age as well, which i think really counts for that. but I do feel like it's true, being single for too long isnt a good thing. like one friend says: love while you can</p>
  • Tahjay
    Tahjay wrote:

    "Is it true how they say, 'If you don't use it you lose it?‘ ”

    Somewhat agree, but just because you are single doesn't mean you aren't trying to be romantic.  Being romantic doesn't guarentee you will find yourself in a relationship.  Sometimes love scars and requires a sufficient amount of time before the heart can recover...

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    Single life = a bunch of bad habits that can difficult the task of share your life with your partner.
    More than single life, I think is worse the bad experiences in past relationships, because they damage the ability for trust on other people, something very important in a relation.

    Change habits is possible, recover the trust.... more difficult.  Seems more likely that a misanthropic and neurotic person like Melvin (As good as it gets) can fall in love than a broken toy. 

  • Winnie
    Winnie wrote:

    yeah, Taidje, i think you can put it that way

    the love scars i would say is the main reason for people to stay single. some people do try harder to find a partner after a broken relationship, some other get more distant for a while. it does require time, the amount depend on who you meet the next. 

    i just simply think it's sad how this works. 

  • Winnie
    Winnie wrote:

    yeah, but how to recover the trust? that's so hard

    Unless the next partner is fearless in love and patient, otherwise the relationship remains on the shallow level because if both dont even want to try, it wont work really. trust has no foundation to be built before you have minimal ability to be in a relationship, but before trust, some people dont have the minimal ability to try

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that the fast-paced romance of serial monogamy proves that playboys and party girls possess the greatest capacity to love.

  • Winnie
    Winnie wrote:

    oh, Dando, they are hopeless from the the start..occassionally you find some people are happily in love afterwards. most just dont give it a sh*t of anything, including love

    they dont have the capacity or need the capacity...some of those people are happy with the way they are...others just want to play cool and get lost

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)


    Hahahahaha ... does anyone see the similarties of this, with a person who has not been working for a long time?

    It is said, or perhaps well known, that the longer is a person being unemployed, he/she will become less and less marketable, whereas the reverse is also true ...

    * take note if you are HR or head hunters *

    * more later *

  • Winnie
    Winnie wrote:

    hahahah, uncle ding dang....yep, same with the unemployment

    damn, i am unemployed for a year now! but i work like a bee for my study. will a lot of adjustment to do when i am back. maybe i should start a new thread asking people for their advice of re-adjustment of setting back in beijing.

    i miss beijing , but that place needs a lot of adjustment, especially in terms of dating!

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    What makes you think they're hopeless, Winnie? On the contrary, a person who finds it easier to become intimate with other people might have more hope than someone who thinks there is only one person in the world who will ever love them.

    Nobody forgets how to fall in love. It's like riding a bicycle. It's sad that you must arbitrarily condemn people who don't fall into your dreadfully boring preconception of what a meaningful relationship is. Meaning is authored by the people involved, not outside observers. And as any creative writer will tell you, a short story can be much harder to write than a novel.

  • Winnie
    Winnie wrote:

    Dando, werent you talked about playboys? isnt that the definition of , or part of it, that they dont mind playing with people's feelings? well, yeah, that's hopeless...yes, they can still love others. i dont question that...my thread is just about being single and capacity to love. i am interested in the playboy or playgirl conversation. sorry, not my life style.

    i believe my thread doesnt tell anyone about my preconception of what a meaningful relationship is. so it is in your head that you bore yourself with any concepts you assume i have. 

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    The definition of playboy is just a wealthy and self-indulgent man who is sexually promiscuous.

    It should be noted that I'm certainly not speaking of myself because I'm dirt poor, self-destructive, and too much of an uncharismatic asshole to get laid often enough for anyone to be jealous.

    But really, we're just talking about promiscuity. "Emotionally manipulative" is not a part of the definition. That's the pejorative connotation you've added to it. This is precisely the type of preconception I was referring to.

  • Winnie
    Winnie wrote:

    not quite true, they dont mean to manipulate their partner emotionally. but they are indifferent of their partners' feelings. that's the preconception i have.

    you surely have given yourself quite of a giant lable....no comments on that. but maybe you can give me some insight of those under this catalog, what they seek in life?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    It's literally impossible to manipulate someone without intention, without meaning to do so. Manipulate means to control with one's hands (hence the root mani-). Moreover, you're dehumanizing people who do not meet your arbitrary expectations by assuming that they lack moral standards rather than simply possessing different moral standards.

    After all, there's nothing about promiscuity that prevents a person from understanding and nurturing another person's emotions. In fact, these are talents that help people to become more promiscuous (girls appreciate sensitive guys), so perhaps people who fall in love easily (or at least convincingly deceive themselves so) are in fact the most dangerous playboys and playgirls of all.

    Oh well. It's time for me to go out to the bar and not go home with random strangers. Not because of any moral standards, mind you. We've established several times over that I lack those.

    G'night, everybody. Make love not war, alcohol and hard drugs don't mix, practice safe sex, and bring back mid-90s industrial rock music right fucking now.

  • Ejdnzlaj
    Ejdnzlaj wrote:

    I'm going to go listen to Godflesh and early Swans now.

  • Simen Wangberg

    I'm never not listening to Godflesh and early Swans. Unless I'm listening to KMFDM and Pitchshifter.

  • №❶ Passioη

    Dando Z does echo my mind for once. Keep it rolling buddy ;

  • Erik Røger
    Erik Røger wrote:

    I disagree dando mix hard drugs, alchohol and unprotected sex. Live life in the fast lane!

Please login to post a reply to this thread.


WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc