Women aren't male athletes, they're women and they will behave as such.

No woman would ever 'never leave you for the world'....not one, you're delluded.

I will admit my language was strong, I will do my best to refrain from doing this in the future and yes I did say I would stop trying you help you wake up, I will hereby stick to that resolve.

One last thing, my opinions on this subject are formed from my experience with women so far, I only know what I know, which is not everything.

So can you tell me what's the difference between me, and the value i offer? What's the difference between a woman loving me, and a woman loving the value i offer??

Secondly, you said that women are women, and they will behave as such. Define "such" please. I would like to know how ALL women behave, all women without exception.

Lastly, do you have any proof that says that i'm deluded (concerning the relationships subject)? Can it not be that you are the one deluded here?

thanks. But would all women without exception revoke the agreement?

Your example of Luis Figo is just what i mean. So what if Figo left Barca for a better Real Madrid at that time?

Does this mean that everyone would act the same?

Why didn't players like Puyol, Xavi, Rivaldo or Cocu leave Barca for a better club at that time?

So you can't really tell that my girl would act like Figo, because she might act like Xavi, and wouldn't leave me for the world.

Okey dokey THIS! THIS!

Before anyone comments, this comes personally from observation.
Many moons ago I did believe in the 'special one' - I do not anymore.

There are women who will be a good match for me. To think there is only one is foolish. To think one is above all the others is foolish also. FUCK THAT!

Whatever happened to space.

Fuck giving them good feelings, give them the space to create them themselves. Apathy is described as : Indifference is described as: There is quite a difference between the two.

Indifference is NOT apathy, apathy is NOT indifference.

Indifference in this sense is to her being with you, her choosing to spend time with you.

Indifference means being that tree.
If she comes towards you, you do not call her forward.
If she goes away, you do not call her back.

When the bird is perched on the tree, the tree is a tree, regardless of what bird is perched there. When the bird leaves the tree does not miss the bird. When another bird perches the tree is still the same tree.

-

A woman I was seeing a couple of years ago still calls me now, she called over the weekend. Describing me as very loving, extremely supportive of her, let her be herself - rather than the mask, let her feel her emotions fully - rather than controlling or dismissing.
She says she never felt so loved in her life, had not been so connected with someone or loved someone so much and so deeply.

Was I indifferent when I was with her - YES!
Did I connect with her emotionally and physically - YES!
Did I take her wants and needs above my own - NO!
Did I take her wants and needs into consideration when they did not clash with my own - YES!

Are the two mutually exclusive - NO!

--

She could have walked at any time and I would have carried on as I was before I met her.
In the end, I was the one who ended it, I walked away after explaining why. I carried on as I was before I met her.

I can live with or without her, I can enjoy myself with or without her, I can have fun with or without her.

Does this mean I did not enjoy my time with her, NO! - I did enjoy the time with her and connected with her on a deep level.

Did this affect who I am - NO! I am me, I was me before I met her, I am me now, afterwards.

She respects this greatly, the fact that I ended how I started.
She knows I am the same person, I was being myself, that I am not trying to get anything from her.

Would she go out with me again? - in a heartbeat.

You're selling yourself short, Barca...as long as you believe that it will always be YOUR reality.

THIS!

Before anyone comments, this comes personally from observation.
Many moons ago I did believe in the 'special one' - I do not anymore.

There are women who will be a good match for me. To think there is only one is foolish. To think one is above all the others is foolish also.

Let’s journey through four perspectives on soulmates and look at the impact each of these definitions can have on your intimate relationship:

1. Your Soulmate is Your Perfect Match.

Research by social psychologists Spike W. S. Lee and Norbert Schwartz (2014) indicates that believing your soulmate is your perfect match can set you up for unhealthy patterns. They found that people who use a perfect-match definition of soulmates tend to experience overreactions to conflict and lower relationship satisfaction. It makes sense, right? If I believe that you are my perfect match, when we bump up against inevitable conflict or our “fall from grace,” I am going to feel disappointed and confused. People who subscribe to this perspective tend to use the language of "should" when talking about love: “It shouldn’t feel like this.” “We shouldn’t have this problem.”

3. Your Soulmate Is Your Fellow Traveler.

“People think that they have to find their soulmate to have a good marriage. Anyone you meet already has soulmates: their mother, their father, their lifelong friends. You get married, and after twenty years of loving, bearing, and raising kids, and meeting challenges, you’ll ‘create’ your soulmate.” (Diane Sollee)

This quote from the former director of the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, focuses on love as a journey that two people take together. Moving through space and time together creates the soulmate bond. The research project that highlighted greater relationship dissatisfaction among those who see soulmates as the perfect match also found that those who view soulmates as fellow travelers tended to have more adaptive perspectives on relationships. There’s a joke that fits with this definition. A man approaches his rabbi and asks, “How do I know whether my wife is my soulmate?” The rabbi answers, “You know because you are married to her.”

Many students have commented that this perspective takes some of the pressure off. You don’t have to know whether he or she is your soulmate by the second date! What matters is whether this person is a worthy travel companion—someone with whom you can build that “relationship of constancy.” This perspective feels pragmatic, loyal, and without angst. Here, there’s no churning about the existential, the metaphysical, the unknown. There’s no “Are we?” or “Aren’t we?” It’s just you and me, moving through days, months, and years together, continuing to show up because we are an “us.” Lovely.

4. Your Soulmate Wakes You Up.

“People think a soul mate is your perfect fit, and that’s what everyone wants. But a true soul mate is a mirror, the person who shows you everything that is holding you back, the person who brings you to your own attention so you can change your life. A true soul mate is probably the most important person you’ll ever meet, because they tear down your walls and smack you awake. But to live with a soul mate forever? Nah. Too painful. Soul mates, they come into your life just to reveal another layer of yourself to you, and then leave.” (Elizabeth Gilbert)

I love the wake-up call of this definition, the invitation to growth. In my experience, people tend to find Gilbert's words unsettling for two reasons. First, woven into the definition is the inevitability of pain. It’s not smooth sailing. You will see parts of yourself you haven’t seen before. You will come face-to-face with your past, your shadow, your hiding places, your tender spots. Second, according to Gilbert, soulmate relationships are vital and time-limited. No “till death do us part” here! A soulmate relationship creates a crisis and a crucible for transformation, allowing us to experience, in the next relationship, a more conscious love. Do I believe that crisis, transformation, and more-conscious love can happen all with the same partner? Of course. Happy couples have several different marriages within their marriage.

What I also like and value about Gilbert’s perspective is that rather than viewing a relationship that has ended as a failure, she opens the possibility of viewing a relationship that has ended as a completion. The relationship did what it was created to do, and now it is complete.

“How do I know when I’ve found The One?” – Austin, Baltimore, MD

This idea of finding “The One” is problematic for relationships. The paradox of choice creates a real sense of anxiety for people looking to find a long-term partner. The expectations of one person to satisfy all of our many emotional, physical, and spiritual needs is a tall order for one individual.

Perhaps, instead of looking for a person who checks all the boxes, focus on a person with whom you can imagine yourself writing a story with that entails edits and revisions. As a reminder, there are no perfect stories.

She could have walked at any time and I would have carried on as I was before I met her.
In the end, I was the one who ended it, I walked away after explaining why. I carried on as I was before I met her.

I can live with or without her, I can enjoy myself with or without her, I can have fun with or without her.

Does this mean I did not enjoy my time with her, NO! - I did enjoy the time with her and connected with her on a deep level.

Did this affect who I am - NO! I am me, I was me before I met her, I am me now, afterwards.

She respects this greatly, the fact that I ended how I started.
She knows I am the same person, I was being myself, that I am not trying to get anything from her.

Would she go out with me again? - in a heartbeat.

Threads like these confirm why I keep showing up here. Such a treasure to be able to read this stuff!

This one stood out for me more than the others.

Before when I read this I'm pretty sure I thought this was somewhat "cold", because I was coming from the belief that we leave imprints on each other. We definitely do and I am just adding too much emphasis on the importance of those imprints. I'm still me after a relationship.

Parts of me related with Barca and his talk about bonds, but reading it again after so many years, I can see the flaws in it. Some girls value bonds more than others (people value different things). Thinking a bond is the special force between two people is a limiting place to come from. It's also focusing on the wrong thing and opposite of being a man/tree.

Thinking about this reminds me of Kidd mentioning, "she needs a man not a mouse". It's a reminder that I need to be a tree, not for her, but for myself.

I'm still holding onto girls are the "prize" so-to-say, but I'm more deliberately working on seeing through that.

I'll end by sharing Scarf's share about the story resonated a lot. I still sense parts of me that resist it, but deep down I know too much! Lol