Azelma wrote:
This is why I chuckle when Aestu speaks with such vulgarity as if she's some tart. I've known tarts. She's not one of them.
You feel the need to affect to chuckle. I see you do this often when you know you're wrong but feel the need to project confidence when you should not be confident. This is worrisome.
She's been loved by men in the past and now you love her. Today. That doesn't necessarily mean she's a whore, but it does mean that you can't pretend your relationship with her is singular.
Maybe the relationships didn't work out, whatever, but it is you and not I who is having difficulty coming to grips with the reality of them.
Let me ask you, how does she generally speak of the men she dated in the past?
Azelma wrote:
As for Aestu, I appreciate your concern...but you don't know her, nor do you know our relationship. I mean, just yesterday we were at a family gathering, and we were in the corner making plans for a road trip out west. We routinely discuss children and marriage some day...she's planning on moving in with me in less than a year.
Again, I appreciate the warnings...and believe me it's something I've been wary of....but at this point it doesn't seem like she'll just change her mind at the drop of a hat.
I don't need to know her or your relationship. What I need to know is known to me.
I know that you are a coward, and are therefore highly susceptible to bullying and manipulation, and also disproportionately given to believing what you prefer to believe rather than what the evidence suggests.
I know that, statistically, the divorce rate is in the double digits, and men who have better reason than you to believe they can look at their world with reasonable objectivity have fallen for women then found themselves on the other side of divorce court.
I also know that you have difficulty approaching this relationship equivocally. Again, your reluctance to listen to her talk about previous men in her life. That past is part of who she is. If you can't deal with that part of her in a relationship, how do you think you're going to live with the whole in marriage?
Something else to consider. It's a fact that the single strongest correlation for attraction and long-term relationship success is the participants having similar confidence levels. This presents a double whammy for people who are low-confidence: people who are low-confidence put themselves at risk for manipulation by more confident abusers, but they also have difficulty maintaining relationships with similarly low-confidence people, because all relationships inevitably hit their rocky spots and it requires confidence to press through. Therefore, low-confidence people tend to have a history of short, unsatisfying relationships.
Another fact that makes me deeply suspicious of the relationship is that you say this woman hangs out mostly with her clique of female friends. This is suspicious for two reasons. First, the culture of American women is poisonous, and preferring the exclusive company of American women suggests she may have been contaminated by their attitudes. Especially since you say they identify as feminist. Feminism is misandry and no one who identifies with the movement and its goals in any respect is relationship material. Fundamental to the feminist doctrine is cynicism and deceit - nothing that its constituents say can be taken at face value.
Second, mature individuals of both genders who are capable of maintaining healthy relationships must have a capacity to deal with the opposite gender with maturity. It's a fact that people who accept the company of both genders equivocally throughout their lives have a better ability to equivocally commit to relationships for this reason. If someone can't have social relations with the opposite gender except in the context of romance, that raises questions about their ability to do so in a healthy and well-balanced way. (Also see: Sex And The City)
And yes the fact she is a clinical shrink also makes me wary. The field of shrinkology and those who practice it are inherently dishonest. A person whose business is the making of pretense can't be trusted, and the entire field of shrinkology, based on semantics and subjectivity, is predicated on the infallibility of the shrink. For this reason it tends to attract and encourage people who find a calling in inventing specious rationalizations for their petty, unquestionable biases. The kind of person you want to get into a relationship with? How long until she starts twisting her petty urges into a circular logic arguing you're bad because you're bad?
More than anything else, what is for me an alarm bell, is the fact you are so unable to analyze the situation objectively - both being unable to accept her relationship history equivocally and being unable to see that, from an objective, meta-analytical viewpoint, you are a high-risk individual, getting into a relationship with a
very high-risk individual. Yet you proceed confidently as if the risk is marginal. If you have lost your objectivity then that itself suggests you're making mistakes.
I'm being harsh, Azelma, but I truly believe that you need to consider the possibility that you may be making a mistake. That doesn't mean that you are...just that you need to consider that it is a possibility. Otherwise, you're not looking at reality clearly.
I mean maybe it will work out well, I sure hope it does, for your sake. I do mean you well.
He is an expert on these things.
