site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2826 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.

You've been together a decade but haven't been able to be near each other. I'm surprised and dismayed at some of the other comments suggesting marriage or more effort on your part. She's just not that into you.

You say: one thing that we both agree on is that we should only calculate affordability based on my assets and income. She's doing this not to protect you, but so that she won't feel as guilty breaking up with you when you move to $(CITY). You've been together 10 years, but still don't feel comfortable discussing finances in a meaningful way. She's chained together at least three excuses/goal posts as to why she can't move to you.

How often do you even see each other, given your limitations? Is this just an online chat friendship masquerading as a romantic relationship?

I moved for a girl once, and the evidence was similarly lopsided. It went horribly and cost me many things. I do not think it's worth the risk. I understand your dating prospects may not be plentiful with your PTSD and non-urban location, but I would consider informally downgrading this relationship (I unfortunately don't believe this woman will care enough for you to go through a formal breakup) and beginning to search for a true life partner.

one thing that we both agree on is that we should only calculate affordability based on my assets and income.

That's the red flag for me. This isn't "we've only been dating six weeks, it's way too soon to move in together". This is "it's been ten years, I want to be with her permanently, she won't move to where I am, I can't afford to buy a house where she wants to live" so why the hell is it "you have to pay for it all, sugarbuns" on her part?

If this is a move meant to make it so they can be together for good (up to marriage, even) then it should be a joint purchase. "All in your name" only works for "so if I want to do a midnight flit tomorrow, I won't be on the hook for the mortgage" and midnight flits are not "you are my forever snookums".

I am going to be a total bitch here and ask OP: are you sure there isn't a boyfriend in the city for the time she isn't with you? Friend with benefits, situationship, whatever the hell they want to call it, because this sounds (and again, we're only getting one side of the story) much too comfortable on her part for what is ten years of 'twice a month if we can make it' relationship.

I am going to be a total bitch here and ask OP: are you sure there isn't a boyfriend in the city for the time she isn't with you? Friend with benefits, situationship, whatever the hell they want to call it, because this sounds (and again, we're only getting one side of the story) much too comfortable on her part for what is ten years of 'twice a month if we can make it' relationship.

This is a shiv Heartiste would be proud of.

I hated to say it because it's attributing motivations to someone I don't know at all, and also being unpleasant to OP, but I do think that after ten years if there's no co-habitation and girlfriend is content with "see you every so often" then she's not likely to change, and there may well be a little friend in her own city that she sees from time to time. Not cheating exactly, but if she doesn't see this relationship as anything other than a casual thing, she may well consider that they are both free to have friends with benefits on the side.

Like I said, I was a bitch to ask that, but sometimes you gotta ask the ugly questions.

She's doing this not to protect you, but so that she won't feel as guilty breaking up with you when you move to $(CITY

This was actually my idea, not hers. I'm extremely financially conservative and she is too. It's specifically because we were comfortably able to discuss finances that we had the conversation in the first place.

How often do you even see each other, given your limitations?

Usually, I drive to her about once a month and she hops a train to me about once a month. We get a couple days together when that happens. Holidays are longer, and when her employer shuts down for several days in the summer we get more then as well.

With a 5-hour round trip a net 2x a month getting to see each other is... reasonable. It's just not enough long term. I've recounted before that I've done 2 multi-year cycles of long distance and thereafter swore them off (even for high-quality women who offered to move to be with me).

Regardless of what ends up happening, I hope you find some sort of resolution and get an ideal outcome from it. I'm very aware of how impossible it is for me to understand a 10 year relationship in a few paragraphs of context.

I'm surprised and dismayed at some of the other comments suggesting marriage or more effort on your part.

Yeah, I agree with this. Even if OP was to keep up in the relationship and try to make it work, marriage is not a good idea with how things stand today.

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