low dependency relationships

Post Reply New Topic

When it comes to "alternative" relationships most people think of open relationships and f**k buddies, etc.

But what do people think about the idea of loving, monogamous relationships between independent people, who value their own space, and time too much to amalgamate, but would like to spend a moderate amount of time together and would like to build a solid relationship on this basis, rather than the status quo of progressing to ever more dependency?

I like this idea because it pragmatic about the reality of relationships,which are after all not really selfless, but it allows mutual affection which is desirable for both.

I think when people talk about "spending more time together", they are often talking about more then just quality time. It is about forming households, having some sort of "relationship status", etc rather than two people who just like each other and that is affirming enough.

Off-topic. And where have you been, young man? Strange, saw Acacia around just a few days ago after not having seen him in a while either.

To answer the question, it is one of the ideals in theory and if it works out in practice, even better. But it doesn't address one of the possible progressions of a relationship - starting a family. Separate households won't work in this case. Not unless you have the means to do it and I've only read of two cases like it.

I always liked this idea. I never understood relationships in which mates had to be with each other all the time. On the other hand I could see myself taking "space" the wrong way and I could see my potential mate also taking it the wrong way. It would depend but I know for me that is an ideal relationship. I need my space and for most "normal" people I find it hard even with friendships.

I don't think I will or want to start a family, though maybe I will change my mind. I'll be the best uncle though

It depends on what degree of dependency is acceptable to both parties, I suppose. i wasn't talking about the physical household more the ideal

From my point of view it is because of being who I am. I have the lifestyle I have becuase, out of a lot of experience this is what keeps my sanity, it a necessity. It is not purely a question of time, it is about maintaining the lifestyle the works. Given the choice of a relationship or the lifestyle, I would choose the lifestyle every time.

Anyway, I've been away becuase I needed to move on, after all it is one aspect of who I am, and I was getting tired of the board tbh. I'm not going to be post here very often, just dropping in.

I know someone in this type of relationship. She is in her late 40's and has grown children living independently. He also has grown children. They are both separated/divorced from their former spouses. She has her household. He has his. She has her finances. He has his.

They spend time together. They sleep over occasionally at each others homes. They are in a monogamous relationship - but they keep separate homes.

They love it.

BTW - they are both neurotypical.

It's very ideal in my opinion. I would rather have a casual, no strings attached relationship with just one person instead of multiple like a lot of people seem to be doing. If I could get my space with just one person and she would be okay with that, I'd be good to go.

I'm the opposite- I very much want a house and finances and children together-
I'd love a relationship where every spare moment is spent with the person I love.

@ OP:

This idea is likely something that sounds perfect to any guy out there, I think its what almost all of us want. That's the problem though - its far more often what a guy would want than vice a verse.

Really?

Not in my experience.

Most of the single guys I know have an independent streak. I guess though whether that's smiled upon or not may have more to do with other factors but, it seems like a lot of the most engaging and busy people I know are just that - either lifelong singles or divorced and 'born again' singles.

I guess the question is how you define "independence"...having agreed-upon joint responsibilities, property, etc doesn't to me constitute dependence on someone, and it's important to note that there's no one type of "single guy"- the kind I've been with were very marriage and family-oriented and eager to combine two lives into one life together.

Is "busy" a good thing to you? It's not to me- sounds hectic and stressful.

I'd be incline to agree with this. There are undoubtedly some guys out there who both genuinely value their autonomy and are fully functional adults, but I've also seen many people confuse a love of 'freedom' and 'independence' with a fear of growing up and a need to remain emotionally-sheltered. It can go either way, I guess, depending on the person.

Joint 'stuff' really isn't the problem though. I'll give you examples; several of the guys in my martial arts class who show up regularly have girlfriends who get angry about it, lean on them about it, find the need to want to do things more often on nights that they have class. It also seems like once a guy is married he's supposed to trade in the Mustang for a minivan and not keep it around, he's supposed to give up the toys like the ATV's, if he likes going to West Virginia on Saturdays to off-road or take the sportbike out to cruise its a problem, even if he gives her a lot of his time, and if he sticks with his guns and says that this is his 'thing' and he feels that its territory that she doesn't have the right of way to request that he give it up, he'll likely be met with a "I see how it is" type answer.

I don't think 'all' women are like this, just that I notice a lot of guys feel they need to throw anything that made them a 'catch' out the window if they are to cave in to their girlfriend/fiance/wife's desires. It seems like many, not all though, want a guy who's a home body and who's under her thumb.

Obviously, having little experience with dating or sizing up guys as partners, I can't argue that there aren't guys who want the same thing of women, I simply don't know. I guess I could say that the types of guys I run into - who I like enough to have a conversation with or seem to be about their own thing, have interests, guys who I can have an intelligent conversation with - they're typically like this. If they're happily married they likely found someone of a similar mind. Most of them however are single, and I think its because - while joint 'stuff' and responsibilities is fine and good, they were told too often that they had to even give more in, as if having their own solo ambitions was a form of infidelity. Most of these guys would love to be with women who have their own solo ambitions but it just doesn't work out that way.

Maybe its just an issue of what the single/umarried residue is when you're past 25? Can't say for sure there either.


That really depends if its good quality or bad quality 'busy'. One energizes you while the other drains you. Think of it like this - we're animals, here for no more point than ensuring the survival of a big colony of cells. The rest is really self-actualization. If sitting around means doing what you want at home like being involved in your hobbies (obligations hypothetically taken care of), that's a good form or low key. If I'm forced to watch TV - I can't do that, even an hour of sitcoms and I feel horribly depressed, I guess my internal sense seems to be that if I'm not either doing something that improves me or energizes me to go out and do more self-actualization, its time down the drain. In a relationship obviously there's give and take, things that need to be done, just that being a round peg and being splintered into a square hole of smarmy mediocre nimbishness where my identity is strictly husband/father and nothing else would be terrible, if I found that happening to me and that I was being in so many ways extorted by my partner into being that - I'd throw the towel in (so long as there were no kids involved). Then again I'm pretty sure that I can pick them better than this by now and, luckily, it seems like the types of women who have the need to break down and remold a guy seem to hate me on instinct.

It's starting to seem like gender lines are being drawn here, but I really think all of this is a bit broader. I've found myself in a position similar to the independent-type guys TechStep is describing and have been in relationships where the guy I was dating became resentful towards and struggled with the regular time apart that I sorely needed. Heck, I've even had guys nag me over little things, like not returning phone calls and emails in a timely enough manner. Some people just desire constant connectedness, gender indifferent.

Some women have trouble losing enough of themselves to support the 'greater good' of the relationship, too, even though arguably more of that sort of thing is expected of them, thanks to traditional gender roles. (Anyone ever read Chopin's The Awakening?) Part of me also wonders if these types of guys really would love to be with a woman as passionate about pursuing her own 'solo ambitions,' if it meant they then would have to stay home and cook for the kids a couple nights a week, while she's out doing her own thing. In a committed relationship, it's pretty near impossible to always 'have your cake and eat it too.'

Maybe you aren't any fun for them, since you're already so bent on beating yourself up and remolding yourself on your own anyhow through one of the self-improvement plans you've frequently got going on? Could be that they're just like, "Well, I guess this one's got it covered on his own."

hey,
just happened to drop in today and see your post. I think it's interesting, and not really an autism only issue. I mean, my mother wants the sort of relationship you've described, and she isn't autistic at all, she's just divorced, (so feels she's 'done' kids & marriage & living together) and very career focussed.

If you feel that's what you want, I'm sure there'll be someone out there who feels similarly.

So it's not really a gender issue- one partner wants to spend more time together than the other.

If it's for the greater financial good of the couple and their family, I don't think that's at all unreasonable- I don't plan on buying at least one DVD every single week once I'm with someone I have a future with- it's irresponsible.

Again, that's not really a gender thing per se, but of one person wanting to spend more time together than the other. I don't know of many healthy relationships with a dynamic where spending time with someone you supposedly love "earns" you the right to be away from them, like escaping their clutches is some kind of treat.

Of course she has the right to request that he give it up, and he things of hers that take away from their time together and financial security as a couple. He/she also has the right to refuse to give it up, and the SO has the right to leave as a result.


Intelligence? Kindness? Sense of humor? Friendliness? How could someone consciously jettison aspects of themselves, even if they were asked to?

Quite the hyperbolic way to describe someone asking their SO to make the home, relationship, and any children a priority.

I truthfully haven't experienced the kind of folk or relationship where it'd have to be "asked"- in my experience, when two people enter into a relationship, it's de-facto assumed they are willing to devote time, energy, and money to sustaining it as opposed to amusing themselves, or else they wouldn't be in a relationship. Could very well be that I don't know many younger or college-aged kids, maybe that's what "relationship" means now, to them.

Interesting implication- that a very close and intimate relationship ISN'T an ambition.
Well I think it's an individual issue more than a gender one- there are men for whom being a husband and father is the pinnacle of their existence.