> Those who I have been with (counting 2 now) I would have moved the world for. I only left the first one because I didn't think she even cared I was there (and her actions didnt show it).
Something to think about, this might be controversial but I'm going to try to put it as well as I can because I think you'll be better off if you think about it - you said you'd have moved the world for a woman you were with, but it didn't even seem like she cared if you were there.
Those two things might be related. These days, much of the media and movies show women falling in love with men who are attentive, kind, loving, and affectionate with no strings attached, and even if she isn't good to him in the beginning he eventually wins her over. Purely dutiful and attendant sorts of men. However, this is a fairly new set of affairs - not long ago, women's expectations and judgments on a man were based on a mix of pragmatic considerations (politics, division of labor), shared values like religion and community, and the man accomplishing tangible things.
It's possible that if you expressed more external drive to change things in the outside world, and less pure devotion at all costs even when it's unreciprocated - that a woman in your life would love you more, serve you more, and actually feel happier being with you. Also, in such a state of affairs, you might be happier too.
Maybe I'm wrong! I don't know, it's just worth thinking about. I see a lot of people talking about preferences for certain things while actually choosing and being satisfied with something a little different.
Something to think about, this might be controversial but I'm going to try to put it as well as I can because I think you'll be better off if you think about it - you said you'd have moved the world for a woman you were with, but it didn't even seem like she cared if you were there.
Those two things might be related. These days, much of the media and movies show women falling in love with men who are attentive, kind, loving, and affectionate with no strings attached, and even if she isn't good to him in the beginning he eventually wins her over. Purely dutiful and attendant sorts of men. However, this is a fairly new set of affairs - not long ago, women's expectations and judgments on a man were based on a mix of pragmatic considerations (politics, division of labor), shared values like religion and community, and the man accomplishing tangible things.
It's possible that if you expressed more external drive to change things in the outside world, and less pure devotion at all costs even when it's unreciprocated - that a woman in your life would love you more, serve you more, and actually feel happier being with you. Also, in such a state of affairs, you might be happier too.
Maybe I'm wrong! I don't know, it's just worth thinking about. I see a lot of people talking about preferences for certain things while actually choosing and being satisfied with something a little different.