# Neediness vs. Caring



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

Can you ladies give me realistic examples that contrast the two within the context of dating? Dramatic ones aren't going help. My meter isn't broken, just doesn't have the most minute graduations.

Like, it seems to me that neediness _is_ caring when both people are equally invested in the relationship. Caring only becomes neediness in a woman's mind, when she isn't as invested as the man. Thus the question becomes, how can a man pretend he doesn't care, till she does?

I'm not talking about calling 15 times, or unable to go an hour without her talking to you, or anything similarly unhinged. I'm referring to normal things, such as her saying or doing something that hurts his feelings, or demonstrates a lack of concern for him. Or he wants to enter into a relationship, but she's still unsure.

Is the non-needy response to just shrug and shelve the relationship? Cause a real man wouldn't care whether a woman wanted him, or something? Or tell her that her behavior was hurtful, and talk about it?

I feel as though not being "needy" is a game, but it seems to dominate how a woman views a man's desirability, so I'm trying to better understand the concept.

Thank you 🙂


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

This issue is really more about what goes on in the heart. Or rather - the behavior is secondary.

So, neediness is a reaction to fearfulness, whereas true care comes from a place of love.

This is a good article. 🙂









What You Believe You Need Will Control You


People have a desire for approval and acceptance. The problem arises when we try to satisfy our longing for others outside of God's perspective and intent.




rickthomas.net


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

And another...









You Cannot Need Someone and Love Someone Equally


You cannot "need" someone and "love" someone equally. If your "need" for a person's affection is greater, you may compromise how you should love them well.




rickthomas.net


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

minimalME said:


> This issue is really more about what goes on in the heart. Or rather - the behavior is secondary.
> 
> So, neediness is a reaction to fearfulness, whereas true care comes from a place of love.
> 
> ...


The general thought behind both those articles seems to be "If you're deep enough into God, nothing else will matter". And, that simply isn't true. Man was not made to be alone, and it isn't good for him to be so.

The latter article does state that we all need something, and are thus controlled by forces/people outside of ourselves. And yet, they continue on with the "if you believe God is all powerful, then nothing else matters" thought process.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

BioFury said:


> The general thought behind both those articles seems to be "If you're deep enough into God, nothing else will matter". And, that simply isn't true. Man was not made to be alone, and it isn't good for him to be so.
> 
> The latter article does state that we all need something, and are thus controlled by forces/people outside of ourselves. And yet, they continue on with the "if you believe God is all powerful, then nothing else matters" thought process.


That's a very different interpretation from what I got out of the articles.

And I stand by what I wrote in my first post.

I wish you the best. 😌


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

minimalME said:


> That's a very different interpretation from what I got out of the articles.
> 
> And I stand by what I wrote in my first post.
> 
> I wish you the best. 😌


"Neediness is a reaction to fearfulness, whereas true care comes from a place of love".

My challenge to that thought process is that we all involve ourselves in romantic relationships because they give us something we want or need. Otherwise there would be no reason to participate in them to begin with. If someone isn't afraid of losing someone, or not being with them, then they don't value that person, or what they contribute to the relationship.


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

BioFury said:


> "Neediness is a reaction to fearfulness, whereas true care comes from a place of love".
> 
> My challenge to that thought process is that we all involve ourselves in romantic relationships because they give us something we want or need. Otherwise there would be no reason to participate in them to begin with. If someone isn't afraid of losing someone, or not being with them, then they don't value that person, or what they contribute to the relationship.


To some degree, @BioFury, I believe I disagree with you. I am currently in a romantic relationship with my Beloved Hubby @Emerging Buddhist, but it's not because he gives me something I want or need. I am in a relationship with him because I took the time to get to know him, and as I got to know him, I enjoyed his company, agreed with his values, and wanted to/chose to share myself and my life with him. I am not afraid of losing him--I have been divorced before and I know I can survive that, and I have been widowed before and I know I can love him even up until death. He is not "mine" to cling to or hang onto--he's not a possession and he doesn't belong only to me because he also has children, family, and ex-spouses! He is with me out of a desire to be here or out of mutually enjoying the sharing, and if the time comes that he no longer wants to be with me then he's free to go. In fact, we speak about this often--I sincerely don't want him to stay out of some sense of obligation or some old, stale commitment. Yes, I 100% absolutely believe in commitment, but to my mind that means I would work on MY side to be the kind of person he'd want to stay with and choose to be here. 

I think true care comes, not from "getting needs met" or "needing someone", but from valuing them fully as they are for who they are...and that is independent of you and whatever you might need. When you value someone, you care about THEM and the focus is outward toward another, not inward toward yourself or your own fear.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

Affaircare said:


> To some degree, @BioFury, I believe I disagree with you. I am currently in a romantic relationship with my Beloved Hubby @Emerging Buddhist, but it's not because he gives me something I want or need. I am in a relationship with him because I took the time to get to know him, and as I got to know him, I enjoyed his company, agreed with his values, and wanted to/chose to share myself and my life with him. I am not afraid of losing him--I have been divorced before and I know I can survive that, and I have been widowed before and I know I can love him even up until death. He is not "mine" to cling to or hang onto--he's not a possession and he doesn't belong only to me because he also has children, family, and ex-spouses! He is with me out of a desire to be here or out of mutually enjoying the sharing, and if the time comes that he no longer wants to be with me then he's free to go. In fact, we speak about this often--I sincerely don't want him to stay out of some sense of obligation or some old, stale commitment. Yes, I 100% absolutely believe in commitment, but to my mind that means I would work on MY side to be the kind of person he'd want to stay with and choose to be here.
> 
> I think true care comes, not from "getting needs met" or "needing someone", but from valuing them fully as they are for who they are...and that is independent of you and whatever you might need. When you value someone, you care about THEM and the focus is outward toward another, not inward toward yourself or your own fear.


Perhaps I didn't understand, but I read your statements as being paradoxical. You say that you're not with him because he gives you something you want/need, but then immediately state that you chose to be with him because you enjoy him and his company. Therefore, you chose to be with him because he provided you companionship, and emotional fulfillment.

I'm not saying that love is entirely self-focused. I am merely saying that we love others because they contribute positively to our lives. After all, you wouldn't love or be with someone if they made you feel like garbage, or hit you every time you met. Because the focus is, ultimately, on you. How _you_ feel about _them _is your deciding factor, not how they feel about you, or some altruistic sense of giving.


----------



## theloveofmylife (Jan 5, 2021)

BioFury said:


> Is the non-needy response to just shrug and shelve the relationship? Cause a real man wouldn't care whether a woman wanted him, or something? Or tell her that her behavior was hurtful, and talk about it?
> 
> I feel as though not being "needy" is a game, but it seems to dominate how a woman views a man's desirability, so I'm trying to better understand the concept.


I think game playing is always a bad idea. If she's the right woman at the right time, things will work out. While you might have to be a bit patient while she comes around, it shouldn't be such a struggle if it's a good fit, IMO.

If you enjoy each other's company, have fun and see what happens naturally.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

I appreciate this post but I think it all boils down to personal preference and how you feel about your partner. 

It’s like when someone is driving faster than you, they are a maniac, and when they drive slower than you they are way too slow. I think people gauge their experiences through what they are doing and just right or in the middle… so if someone is a little bit more caring or kind or wants more, the person will think they are needy.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

Also everyone has issues and has been hurt. Some issues cause people to open up very slowly, be very cautious about people. There are people who view “clingy” people, or overly loving/giving people as red flags, especially if they have a personal view that it’s too early for that. 

Other people jump head first into relationships and enjoy the loving clingyness phase. Everyone is different.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

Girl_power said:


> I appreciate this post but I think it all boils down to personal preference and how you feel about your partner.
> 
> It’s like when someone is driving faster than you, they are a maniac, and when they drive slower than you they are way too slow. I think people gauge their experiences through what they are doing and just right or in the middle… so if someone is a little bit more caring or kind or wants more, the person will think they are needy.


Yeah, so in the context of an uncommonly attractive girl, someone pursuing her just puts them into a bucket full of everyone else. But whatever, I was forthright and expressed myself freely. The rest is out of my hands.

I tried turning over a new leaf with her, being patient and all that. But she proved to be no different than my past experience told me she would be. So I'm back to "put out or get out" ideology (she left today).


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I've always thought of neediness as a control issue stemming from insecurity.

There's nothing wrong with making known what you want. It's good to be clear about where you stand.

Neediness is an attempt to force things that aren't happening naturally.

Example: you want a committed relationship and she's waffling. Absolutely make clear what you want, but you become needy if you are unable to accept that she's not all in and start pushing. You're trying to control and force what's not happening naturally. In this scenario you either accept it or move on.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

lifeistooshort said:


> I've always thought of neediness as a control issue stemming from insecurity.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with making known what you want. It's good to be clear about where you stand.
> 
> ...


I don't think I tried to force things - at least, that wasn't my intent. I only asked that she keep me informed of any changes in her neutrality, and asked about it when I sensed indifference in her words or actions. Because in my limited experience, girls don't tell people when their feelings change. They just let things continue on, eventually forcing the guy to ask what the hell is going on.

But from the very beginning, the things she would say, and the way she behaved, were nearly carbon copies of another girl I was with from a few years ago. One who was "uncertain" (but wasn't really), flirted up a storm, sent me selfies all the time, talked to me all day every day, but avoided any talk about where the relationship was actually going.

So, I nearly left multiple times when the similarities grew too stark for me to ignore. But, I thought maybe I was letting past negative events unjustly influence this situation, that could be wholly different, and tried to just wait and see what happened.

But, they both just liked the attention it seems. Which makes me want to say very un-nice things about them.


----------



## BlueWoman (Jan 8, 2015)

BioFury said:


> I don't think I tried to force things - at least, that wasn't my intent. I only asked that she keep me informed of any changes in her neutrality, and asked about it when I sensed indifference in her words or actions. Because in my limited experience, girls don't tell people when their feelings change. They just let things continue on, eventually forcing the guy to ask what the hell is going on.
> 
> But from the very beginning, the things she would say, and the way she behaved, were nearly carbon copies of another girl I was with from a few years ago. One who was "uncertain" (but wasn't really), flirted up a storm, sent me selfies all the time, talked to me all day every day, but avoided any talk about where the relationship was actually going.
> 
> ...


This won’t help you now, but it really sounds like you are in the process of learning and developing some very healthy relationship boundaries. 

It’s a hard balance identifying if something is a red flag or if you are letting your past experience influence your perceptions. 

I think you now know that what you were seeing was a red flag. And the next time you meet a woman who plays that kind of game you will know to walk away instead of waiting around. Eventually you are going to find a woman who is emotionally ready to accept what you have to offer. And when that happens, you are going to be glad you didn’t waste any more valuable time on women who either weren’t ready for you or were never going to be right for you.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

lifeistooshort said:


> I've always thought of neediness as a control issue stemming from insecurity.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with making known what you want. It's good to be clear about where you stand.
> 
> ...


I really liked this explanation.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

BioFury said:


> I don't think I tried to force things - at least, that wasn't my intent. I only asked that she keep me informed of any changes in her neutrality, and asked about it when I sensed indifference in her words or actions. Because in my limited experience, girls don't tell people when their feelings change. They just let things continue on, eventually forcing the guy to ask what the hell is going on.
> 
> But from the very beginning, the things she would say, and the way she behaved, were nearly carbon copies of another girl I was with from a few years ago. One who was "uncertain" (but wasn't really), flirted up a storm, sent me selfies all the time, talked to me all day every day, but avoided any talk about where the relationship was actually going.
> 
> ...


I had the same experience with my last guy. I don’t think there is much we can do when they are wafting. 
I am playing the field and not sleeping with anyone until I get a full on commitment. Some people want girlfriend/boyfriend privileges without the commitment… I don’t think so.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

It sounds more like you just need to face reality. I would tentatively define neediness as someone who will be annoying to another person to satisfy their own needs and insecurities. But you are overlooking instances where she isn't reciprocating and you need to just realize that because an imbalanced relationship just doesn't work in the long term.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

BioFury said:


> Yeah, so in the context of an uncommonly attractive girl, someone pursuing her just puts them into a bucket full of everyone else. But whatever, I was forthright and expressed myself freely. The rest is out of my hands.
> 
> I tried turning over a new leaf with her, being patient and all that. But she proved to be no different than my past experience told me she would be. So I'm back to "put out or get out" ideology (she left today).


How long were you courting this girl? Was it reasonable at this stage to expect commitment or were you jumping the gun?

I understand that your religion limits your prospects. At the same time, your threads invariably invoke a feeling of desperation on your part to get on with this whole marriage, sex, and baby carriage thing. Is there any way to make yourself the prize rather than the women?

I must say your statement "put out or get out" is amusing in its usage.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

Blondilocks said:


> How long were you courting this girl? Was it reasonable at this stage to expect commitment or were you jumping the gun?
> 
> I understand that your religion limits your prospects. At the same time, your threads invariably invoke a feeling of desperation on your part to get on with this whole marriage, sex, and baby carriage thing. Is there any way to make yourself the prize rather than the women?
> 
> I must say your statement "put out or get out" is amusing in its usage.


About 7 weeks. I wasn't asking for commitment, I just didn't want to waste my time if she had been polarized one way or the other. For example, if I shared something about myself, and she fired back something that communicated complete indifference, I took issue with it.

I wouldn't freak out or anything, I'd just get quiet and ask about it. Ask what she meant, and how it was received on my end. It was during these conversations that I asked how she was feeling about things, in an attempt to determine whether it was just a bone-headed comment on her part, or whether she simply didn't give a flying leap about me, or our relationship.

I made it clear to her that I wasn't asking for a commitment, or trying to speed up her decision. I simply wanted to know what the hell was going on, and wasn't going to act like I wasn't offended when she said something that I found offensive.

Anyway, the last time this happened, I asked her if she had time to talk. She said no, so I said ok. Next night she was busy, night after that we had no time. Fourth night I ask again, "do you have time to call tonight?" and she goes "maybe... idk". She had no plans plans, so not thrilled with what I considered dissimulation, I said "What don't you know?". She said "Whether I'll be busy" - no explanation, no "this came up", so I just said "No problem, that answers my questions well enough" or something like that. She said "I just don't think I can handle it. I keep doing things that bother you, and honestly I don't see why it does". So I said "Alrighty, have a good one" and haven't spoken to her since.

-

Well, I did view myself as the prize. I'm attractive, I'm financially stable, I'm funny, I'm honest to a fault, I'm strong/aggressive, I'm kind... at least, that's what my ex's have all said. But, if all that were true, it seems to me they wouldn't have left. If it were true, women such as this one wouldn't breezily disregard the prospect of being mine.

She said "You really are a great person to talk to. But relationship wise, I just don't think it's an option". Would she have said that to a funny, strong, forthright, successful man that she found attractive? I think not. Which means that either women are full of ****e, or I'm not those things that they've told me I am.

All that to say... I think, or thought, that I was hot stuff, a catch. But being left by every woman I've ever been interested in has eaten away at that vision of myself. The proof is in the pudding, if you will.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

BioFury said:


> About 7 weeks. I wasn't asking for commitment, I just didn't want to waste my time if she had been polarized one way or the other. For example, if I shared something about myself, and she fired back something that communicated complete indifference, I took issue with it.
> 
> I wouldn't freak out or anything, I'd just get quiet and ask about it. Ask what she meant, and how it was received on my end. It was during these conversations that I asked how she was feeling about things, in an attempt to determine whether it was just a bone-headed comment on her part, or whether she simply didn't give a flying leap about me, or our relationship.
> 
> ...


What you're describing is someone who just isn't into you. Things aren't comfortable and easy between you, she finds you touchy and doesn't seem to understand you, you don't seem to be reading her well, the two of you are butting heads often. She's not interested in a relationship with you and you two seem to be fundamentally incompatible. She's not wrong. You're not wrong. You two just aren't right for each other. This ought to be a "no harm, no foul" situation where you realize she's just not into you as a romantic partner, shrug it off, and move along.



BioFury said:


> Well, I did view myself as the prize. I'm attractive, I'm financially stable, I'm funny, I'm honest to a fault, I'm strong/aggressive, I'm kind... at least, that's what my ex's have all said. But, if all that were true, it seems to me they wouldn't have left. If it were true, women such as this one wouldn't breezily disregard the prospect of being mine.
> 
> She said "You really are a great person to talk to. But relationship wise, I just don't think it's an option". Would she have said that to a funny, strong, forthright, successful man that she found attractive? I think not. Which means that either women are full of ****e, or I'm not those things that they've told me I am.
> 
> All that to say... I think, or thought, that I was hot stuff, a catch. But being left by every woman I've ever been interested in has eaten away at that vision of myself. The proof is in the pudding, if you will.


Most people who are in the dating world will go out with lots of prospective partners who turn out to just not be a great fit. They aren't compatible, they're not on the same page in their opinion of the relationship, they just don't get along, one or the other just isn't feeling a spark, one is annoyed by the other, whatever. They just aren't a good fit for a happy long-term relationship. That's just the nature of dating. Not everyone you go out with will want to marry you. That you seem to want to marry everyone you go out with would indicated that you're not really evaluating your partners as actual people. Rather, you seem to be wanting to check a box for "marriageable woman" and then are getting frustrated when the women don't comply as expected. 

Your own feeling that you're all that and a bag of chips and she'd be lucky to have you isn't the problem. Healthy self-esteem is right and valuable. The problem is that you seem to feel entitled to have women respond to you in the way you'd like. It's leading you to be resentful and angry at women in general, just because you haven't found one who's compatible with you yet. Here's the thing, though, women aren't required to be into you. No matter how much you might think they should be. No matter how kind, how handsome, how financially stable, how objectively you meet all the "usual" standards for a guy who's a catch - no individual woman is required to find you appealing. Women are people - actual real human beings with autonomy, agency and their own thoughts and feelings. And none of their thoughts and feelings are less valid than your own. Just because you want a relationship with a woman doesn't mean she's required to reciprocate. 

So, I recommend that instead of being bitter, angry and resentful about women because they don't want to marry you, you learn to appreciate that women are individuals with valid preferences of their own. Most women _aren't_ going to want to marry you. That's just the law of averages. There will, hopefully, be someone who does. But none of the ones who don't are bad or conniving or any other sort of evil because they don't.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

Rowan said:


> What you're describing is someone who just isn't into you. Things aren't comfortable and easy between you, she finds you touchy and doesn't seem to understand you, you don't seem to be reading her well, the two of you are butting heads often. She's not interested in a relationship with you and you two seem to be fundamentally incompatible. She's not wrong. You're not wrong. You two just aren't right for each other. This ought to be a "no harm, no foul" situation where you realize she's just not into you as a romantic partner, shrug it off, and move along.


Well, it's rare to even find a girl that's physically attractive in our faith community, so you can perhaps understand why my selection process isn't that of a Saudi prince. There aren't a lot of good options available to me, and to behave as though that were not the case, by requiring that every woman be absolutely perfect for me, would be counter-productive.

Which isn't to say my standards are low, only that I'm willing to accept small amounts of friction, and mild incompatibilities - because I know that finding someone with whom even the major bullet points are checked is rare enough. 

Our conflicts didn't take place often, nor did we bump heads. She would just say things at times that were insulting, and she didn't realize it. For instance, she was rather amorous in her teen years, and would often mess around with the seasonal help her parents hired. I jokingly voiced my regret in not having been hired by her parents, to which she responded "It's not like I kissed _anyone _who showed up", or something to that effect.

Now, maybe I'm just touchy, but the way that came across to me was "Geez, I wouldn't have kissed _you_, I have standards for God's sake". But I wasn't upset, as I was hoping she has just... not articulated her thoughts well. I brought it up, and it turns out she was just feeling a little defensive, because she didn't want it to appear as though she would just get with anyone who got hired, and her statement had nothing to do with me. So I was like "no problem", and we moved on with the conversation.

Things like that would happen maybe once or twice a week, with her and I talking in pretty much every spare moment of every day. So I don't think that qualifies as "bumping heads", or as a contentious relationship. The vast majority of our conversations were fine. We shared many of the same values, long term goals, opinions on topics/life, we made each other laugh, etc. So I don't think it's as though I was trying to force a square beg into a round hole, we got along rather well.



Rowan said:


> Most people who are in the dating world will go out with lots of prospective partners who turn out to just not be a great fit. They aren't compatible, they're not on the same page in their opinion of the relationship, they just don't get along, one or the other just isn't feeling a spark, one is annoyed by the other, whatever. They just aren't a good fit for a happy long-term relationship. That's just the nature of dating. Not everyone you go out with will want to marry you. That you seem to want to marry everyone you go out with would indicated that you're not really evaluating your partners as actual people. Rather, you seem to be wanting to check a box for "marriageable woman" and then are getting frustrated when the women don't comply as expected.
> 
> Your own feeling that you're all that and a bag of chips and she'd be lucky to have you isn't the problem. Healthy self-esteem is right and valuable. The problem is that you seem to feel entitled to have women respond to you in the way you'd like. It's leading you to be resentful and angry at women in general, just because you haven't found one who's compatible with you yet. Here's the thing, though, women aren't required to be into you. No matter how much you might think they should be. No matter how kind, how handsome, how financially stable, how objectively you meet all the "usual" standards for a guy who's a catch - no individual woman is required to find you appealing. Women are people - actual real human beings with autonomy, agency and their own thoughts and feelings. And none of their thoughts and feelings are less valid than your own. Just because you want a relationship with a woman doesn't mean she's required to reciprocate.
> 
> So, I recommend that instead of being bitter, angry and resentful about women because they don't want to marry you, you learn to appreciate that women are individuals with valid preferences of their own. Most women _aren't_ going to want to marry you. That's just the law of averages. There will, hopefully, be someone who does. But none of the ones who don't are bad or conniving or any other sort of evil because they don't.


Well, I already covered that fact that finding a woman who's pretty is rare enough, without even considering her personal attributes. That said, yes, I do have a "check list" if you will, I thought everyone did? If we're attracted to each other, have compatible values & goals, enjoy the same leisure activities, and make each other laugh, then... what's the hold up? I'm hardly expecting her to fall to her knees and beg me to carry her to the alter, but I would expect her to stick around.

I don't have any issue with women having preferences. I take issue with the women themselves telling me that I'm great, that I'm attractive, that I'm hilarious, that I'm kind, that I'm fascinating... and then leaving. The words don't match the actions.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

BioFury said:


> with her and I talking in pretty much every spare moment of every day.


To quote P. T. Barnum "Always Leave Them Wanting More". Don't be available 24/7. Don't tell your life story within 24 hours of meeting someone.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

Blondilocks said:


> To quote P. T. Barnum "Always Leave Them Wanting More". Don't be available 24/7. Don't tell your life story within 24 hours of meeting someone.


I've heard such things before, but if I want to talk to her, and have the time, wouldn't doing anything else be pretentious?


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

BioFury said:


> I've heard such things before, but if I want to talk to her, and have the time, wouldn't doing anything else be pretentious?


How's that working for you? 

What is pretentious about having something to do other than using every spare minute talking up a girl? Leave something for the in-person convos. Let her want to learn about such and such in your life - don't just put it all out there because it cheapens it. 

Personally, I don't trust people who share too much too soon.


----------

