Damn I have a lot to learn. Are you guys made of steel or something?
Even when you're in a relationship, you're better off if you're not "emotionally attached". Let me explain:
First off, emotional attachment isn't about being loving or about having loving feelings for another person. Don't confuse the terms, those are completely different things.
Emotional attachment is when your sense of well-being is "attached" to another person's words or actions. It's when your happiness is dependent on the outcome of events beyond your control. And since you can only control yourself, your happiness is always completely out of your control when you're emotionally attached. Another person (or event) controls your happiness.
If you find yourself saying things that start with, "I'll be happy when (or if)... ", then you're emotionally attached.
You'll be happy when or if she says yes.
You'll be happy when or if you get that promotion.
You'll be happy when or if you graduate college.
You'll be happy when or if you buy that car.
You'll actually never be truly happy.
In a relationship, you can continue to be your own source of happiness by being "emotionally detached", which is about not being affected by what another person does. Sure, she can, people can and situations can
influence your happiness to some degree, either plus or minus, but should she break the relationship, you wouldn't become a weeping pile of devastated man, crippled and traumatized, finding it difficult to cope, needing a therapist, needing to vent, because she couldn't take your happiness away as she will if you're emotionally attached to her and dependent on her to fill your happiness needs.
This is why the previous poster could feel "completely devastated" by someone not wanting to see him again. He was emotionally attached to the outcome over a near-perfect stranger. He rendered control of himself over to this near-perfect stranger. When the outcome wasn't in his favor, he had negative emotions over it. That's not good management of one's life.
Were he "emotionally detached", he wouldn't feel devastated. He'd still prefer that it worked out of course (and maybe he's lucky it didn't! Just ask Phil Hartman) but it wouldn't get to him, he wouldn't feel the need to let her know 'the emotional toll she takes on people', rather, he'd assign its proper place in his life, which is: it didn't work out. Too bad. Next. He gave
himself that emotional toll, not her. She only triggered it in him, it was there already.
This is the "mature man's" forum. An immature man is dependent on others for his happiness, like a child is likewise dependent on his guardians, literally for his life. But when we grow up, and we're no longer children, we become independent, not needing anyone to provide for us, we provide for ourselves. We no longer fear abandonment because we can take care of ourselves.
Same goes for growing up emotionally. We can become emotionally mature, and in so doing, are not dependent on others for our happiness. Others only either enhance our happiness or dull it, in which case when it's the latter, we don't keep them in our lives. Again, we are responsible for the quality of our lives and our happiness.
Some guys mature in age but never regarding their emotional maturity, they remain childish and stuck.
Is this emotional maturity about being made of steel? Not really, but it does mean that you respect yourself enough so as to make the hard changes you need to make to grow up. It gets easier with practice.
Fair enough, but most people here were saying don't even tell her you don't give a damn-Just ignoring her, sort of like how a girl would do. That's not exactly how men acted in that era. Telling her you're indifferent and why doesn't make you any less indifferent. It just sends the message sooner and clearer.
True. Indifference would mean you probably wouldn't even bother telling her you're indifferent. Just like she shows she's indifferent by not ever calling again or seeing you again. That would be absolute indifference. In needing to send the message orally or written, the inferred message is that you still felt a need, but that need could be about ego repair or insecurity rather then indifference. So it's still not a good message to send because you're only proving that you're not quite emotionally healthy. Why do that? That is to say, an emotionally healthy person just wouldn't do it.
But being a movie, they had dialogue to clue the audience in knowing what's going on in the characters' minds. Even so, it had an impact on the public and it serves to make the point in this discussion about how powerful indifference is.
Walking out, or we could say, demonstrating indifference by one's ACTIONS, however, speaks volumes and sends the correct message: when you cross my boundaries, I'm out.
