![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Indirect overriding direct feedback...
A sweetie recently professed zir love, and said "I don't know what to say to make you feel more secure." But I tend to give words little credence... I tend to watch someone's actions instead. Quietly taking notes and drawing inferences as regards someone's practical, rather than professed, level of interest or affection. In relationships, it seems like I'm always evaluating and re-evaluating how I stand in a given love's affections, usually looking at who zie is spending the most time with,
and the quality of the time spent. For example, if a given sweetie says that "I love you dearly and you're important to me", but can only find time in two months for coffee or a brief lunch (while seeing one or more other partners or close friends several times on evening-long dates or overnights during the same time period), then the message I get indirectly is "I love you, at least somewhat, but I'm too busy to see you, given your relative (un-)importance in my relationship structure." And that indirect assessment then generally determines my willingness to devote further time and energy to that relationship.
I even find myself doing this at times with LJ friend's lists... if I haven't seen an entry from someone in awhile, my first reaction is to check their calendar or profile to determine if I've simply been screened-out of recent entries (given the proliferation of friends-list filtering). If I've been filtered, that affects my willingness to read or respond to that given person's future unfiltered or public entries. Sort of "X doesn't really like me anymore, but is too polite to actually remove me from their friends-list, so I shouldn't bother them in the future. Unless X explicitly shows interest at some future point in something I've posted." There are actually several people with whom I've gone through cycles of filtered-withdrawal-reengaged on LJ, and they aren't necessarily aware of this... (shrug)
Granted that my approach, which works fine for me, isn't necessarily sensible or reasonable for anyone else. For that matter, I have yet to make a friends-list-only entry, let alone use filters. Or killfiles, on Usenet.
and the quality of the time spent. For example, if a given sweetie says that "I love you dearly and you're important to me", but can only find time in two months for coffee or a brief lunch (while seeing one or more other partners or close friends several times on evening-long dates or overnights during the same time period), then the message I get indirectly is "I love you, at least somewhat, but I'm too busy to see you, given your relative (un-)importance in my relationship structure." And that indirect assessment then generally determines my willingness to devote further time and energy to that relationship.
I even find myself doing this at times with LJ friend's lists... if I haven't seen an entry from someone in awhile, my first reaction is to check their calendar or profile to determine if I've simply been screened-out of recent entries (given the proliferation of friends-list filtering). If I've been filtered, that affects my willingness to read or respond to that given person's future unfiltered or public entries. Sort of "X doesn't really like me anymore, but is too polite to actually remove me from their friends-list, so I shouldn't bother them in the future. Unless X explicitly shows interest at some future point in something I've posted." There are actually several people with whom I've gone through cycles of filtered-withdrawal-reengaged on LJ, and they aren't necessarily aware of this... (shrug)
Granted that my approach, which works fine for me, isn't necessarily sensible or reasonable for anyone else. For that matter, I have yet to make a friends-list-only entry, let alone use filters. Or killfiles, on Usenet.
I do that.
Sometimes I unfriend people because they are too writey and they keep scrolling other people off my list, but then I go read them with a bookmark. I might make a friends-only entry to keep random nosy acquaintances from finding stuff out, and then I might not think to add people back to the friends list so they don't feel left out.
I keep reading stuff like this in people's LJs. Maybe I'll get out of the LJ business altogether, if it's so easy to be interpreted as "not caring" or "not liking" or "lying about liking," when all I'm trying to do is be a little more available to people and to keep some rememberies. [Not that I figure I play any role in your issues, Brian. :-) I'm just noodling off on some repeated themes I'm running across in LJ.]
To get back to *you* (heaven forbid): is there any chance that something about the way you live your life makes it *difficult* for people to get together with you? Or to get together with you on their own terms (which can be important to people sometimes)? Do you carry any extra burdens around with you (like, say, a jealous spouse or small children), that can reduce the freedom someone feels to make spontaneous plans with you, or to invite you out?
Do the people in question have weird issues like, say, not being able to entertain in their homes and needing to go to other people's places? Do they rely on other people to pay for them a lot, and find you unable or unwilling? Do they like to combine specific pursuits with sweetie-time, which the other sweeties like to pursue but you don't? Or anything like that, that isn't about your company so much as the comfort and convenience of spending time with you?
Anyway, there's no shame in reducing the emotional energy you are willing to put into a relationship with someone who you don't get to see enough. It just seems unfortunate to be drawing conclusions that make you feel bad, if the comparison is between apple-flavored sweeties and orange-flavored sweeties.
Re: I do that.
Hmmm... the underlying problem that I see is that by calling it a "friends list", LJ inevitably mixes-in issues of personal value and validation, e.g., "I must be an okay person, or Foo wouldn't have me on his friends list."
Do you carry any extra burdens around with you (like, say, a jealous spouse or small children)
(chuckle) that's certainly true... Pat has had bouts with the green monster, and been fickle at times as far as poly-support goes, and I have one small and two medium-sized children. Babysitting and reassuring my primary are baggage I carry, along with my own personal kit. On the other hand, to those individuals that are brave enough (or sufficiently foolhardy) to be my partners in spite of all of this, I give much slack regarding supporting their own terms, paying for activities, meals and airline tickets, or catering to their interests. Really, it isn't as much the total activity in a given relationship that sets off my warning sirens, but the trend of activity compared to that person's other activites and relationships.
isn't about your company so much as the comfort and convenience of spending time with you
I see it as being about the life I've built just as much as personality quirks, and hard to differentiate between them. Saying "I'd spend more time with you if you were single and childfree" is little different in effect from saying "I'd spend more time with you if you were a vegetarian" or "...if you had brown eyes." Rejection is rejection...