site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2829 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for November 9, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do agree with this post of SubstantialFrivolity.

My psychological hypothesis based on your entire post is: Her insistence on (1) independent (2) city travel is to keep her options open for finding a better partner. Reasons for this hypothesis are:

  1. Reluctance to sacrifice independence: she strongly resists any move which can reduce her independent mobility (and does not even consider viable alternatives like depend upon you, or e-bikes, or ride-shares). The plausible reason (hidden or otherwise) is that the City offers proximity to social, professional, and romantic networks (much greater optionality).

  2. Shifting the Goalpost: when the public transport thing was apparently solved, she produced new problems like career prospects. This to me, is the most weighted option for my hypothesis.

  3. Optionality in this Relationship: even after a decade, she seems to be very comfortable in the current arrangement ("she misses him" but faces no urgency to create a shared future or overcome the distance). Why? Because somewhere deep inside, she doesn't want to be dependent to the current partner. Particularly, not at cost of Reason 1 above.

  4. The tendency to "Have the Best Possible Mate": If a woman perceives that her current partner is her best realistic option, then she tends to be highly motivated to secure and "lock-in" the relationship (as fast as practically possible). She would be the one to push for togetherness, ready to face inconveniences, and make it work (at any cost). Not make excuses. Since she is stalling and does not show any kind of initiative, consciously or not, she does not consider You as her highest value prospect. (sorry).

In short, while no one (IMO, not even herself) can know her motivations, the sustained lack of initiative from her side, resistance to any inconveniences from her side (even when you are doing the most you can do), intense preference for independent mobility with city independence- all these point towards a mindset of having more options, knowingly or unknowingly.

A woman truly deeply in love and fully invested in a man almost never has such a defensive option-preserving posture over a decade (I really don't believe that). Such a woman would be showing real intent and decisive movement towards union (across any situation), never endless hesitation and new excuses.

This is not to say that I am saying she is bad. But these are her priorities, shown by her actions (actions speak louder than words). They are what they are.

OTOH, you have worked hard to keep this relationship alive, making extreme (to your limits and beyond them also) emotional and logistical sacrifices to try to find solutions to practical obstacles. The demonstration of level of commitment from both sides are lopsided (to say the least). You deserve a relationship where both partners are eager and willing to build a life together - sometimes one side does more and equally number of times the other side does more (never one side goes on doing and doing and the other side never / minimally does). And this relationship does not appear to be anywhere near that level. Accepting this does mean someone has to be blamed (not her, not yourself) - it is what it is. It means to free yourself from trying to fit a round peg in a square hole and actually try to find the kind of relationship / partnership which is mutual, honest, and fulfilling for both sides. Wishing you courage and clarity to decide what is right for you.

Her insistence on (1) independent (2) city travel is to keep her options open for finding a better partner.

It may be not as cynical as that, at least not rationally. Seeing somebody twice a month, without trying for anything more, sounds like friendship situation. Maybe dear, close friend, maybe with, you know, benefits, but still a friendship. As an introvert, if I saw a friend twice a month, I'd say "we meet very frequently". So it may be just how this is for her - no more than that. And I would not tell a dear friend to the face "I don't want to see you any more than that, twice a month is plenty, any more and it'd get clingy" - but if that's what I want, that's how things will arrange themselves. I mean, a friendship is a wonderful thing too, just need to be clear what it is.

This isn't supposed to be a friendship. From OP's POV, this is a nearly done deal for companionship barring 1 or 2 major issues. and if you think that she is treating him as a friend, then also it doesn't fit. who wants to live together with a friend (unless FWB) and then also, the person who feels that this is a friendship only from her side would explain to the other person that she has friendzoned him clearly, so that the friend (OP) doesn't get hurt. So, this is definitely not real friendship.

We've discussed living together, and we both agree to the idea in principle

She does not drive, and will not accept living somewhere that does not have ubiquitous, reliable transportation.

While our attempts to find a home together

She tells me she misses me, and that she wishes we could be together.

In her new reasoning, she claims that the issue is about career concerns. She works in service , but my area has a raging hospitality industry. When she lived here, she would make as much money during tourist season as she does in a year in $(CITY).

"Agreeing to the idea in principle" but when it comes to making it happen, it's all on OP. He has to buy a house or other dwelling in the city. She is not putting a penny towards this. Even though it's supposed to be "and then we can live together".

It well may be she doesn't want any kind of closer relationship with anyone and this is what suits her, I've read stories of "famous author doesn't live with her husband and they have two separate houses" before. Long-distance boyfriend that they have a close friendship but only have to meet face-to-face and be together for short periods at a time might be all she wants in a relationship.

But it would be kinder and more honest of her to say that, instead of a string of excuses. Perhaps she doesn't even know herself, though, what exactly she wants: 'this works, why mess with it, if it ain't broke don't fix it'.

But it would be kinder and more honest of her to say that Actions speaker louder than words. One needs to understand (and accept) those, rather than wait for explicit words.

Perhaps she doesn't even know herself very possible (i would say likely). which is why, actions should be taken by the OP to shake things out into the open.

My psychological hypothesis based on your entire post is: Her insistence on (1) independent (2) city travel is to keep her options open for finding a better partner… consciously or not, she does not consider You as her highest value prospect.

TRVTH status: NVKE. The Hanson article “Cities as Harems” is nearing its tenth birthday.

One day, I would sit and read Robin Hanson from start.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats