Miss Information
A guy's interested in me, but I'm pregnant. How should I respond?
by Cait Robinson
Have a question for Miss Information? Email .
Dear Miss Info,
I'm a pregnant college student, and I've decided to place the baby for adoption. I'm going through a reputable agency and have already started interviewing potential couples. Right now, I'm at fifteen weeks and beginning to show.
Recently, a good guy friend of mine has made his interest in me known. He knows that I'm pregnant and planning to place the baby for adoption. I've started thinking about him romantically, and my interest is piqued. But this seems like bad timing — in a colossal way. My pregnancy is only going to become more uncomfortable/noticeable. I also think I should focus on keeping myself healthy and taking classes. My hormones are already all over the map, so I'm leery of getting into a relationship when I am (or at least feel) biologically incapable of making a decent, logical decision. But because my hormones are all over the map, I want to be with him even more!
I am really stuck here and am leaning towards telling him that I am consumed with classes and pregnancy right now. But when I think about that conversation it makes me profoundly sad, because I can't expect him to wait around for the next six months.
I'm having a hard time making heads or tails of my emotions while pregnant and I'm unsure what the best decision will be for me. Help!
— Pregnant and Dating
Dear Pregnant and Dating,
Hormones! Those great little neurosis-inducing bastards. Does it help if I tell you that your emotions' heads and tails seem to be exactly where they belong? You should definitely be putting your health and stability first here — which may mean embracing those mood swings without having to worry about a shellshocked boyfriend. This is nine months of your life where self-absorption is not only encouraged, but mandated. Order extra donuts.
If you look at the next six months of sensible choices and whimper, though, just remember that pregnancy is finite. Any decision you make now vis-a-vis kissing a boy will only have to be temporary. Remaining unattached until you give birth is a much less daunting prospect than, say, "remaining unattached until I get my grades up" or "until I stop crying during Home Depot commercials;" at least pregnancy has an end date. You shouldn't feel like this moment is your one and only shot, or that you have to catch this guy before he slips away. If that turns out to be the case, then he wasn't worth it to begin with.
More importantly, deciding you need to focus on yourself right now doesn't mean cutting off all contact with this guy. If he's been your friend for a while, and he is supportive of you during this pregnancy, then he should understand where you are coming from. You can still grow your relationship with him without taking it in a sexual direction yet. Use the time to really get to know each other. Maybe he'll become a source of support and fantastic relationship material; maybe he'll flame out and nothing will come of it. Either way, you won't compromise your stability finding out.
Dear Miss Information,
For six months, I've been "seeing" this guy who doesn't want to fully commit to me. When we met, neither of us were looking for a relationship. But we've gotten along so well from the beginning, and we have such incredible sex, that a few months into it, I began to realize that I wanted more from the guy.
After three months, I broke it off with him. I told him that I respected what he wanted — i.e., to be untethered — but that I couldn't ignore the fact that I wanted to be exclusively with him, and that it hurt to continue this way. He contacted me two weeks later via an incredibly lengthy email telling me how much he missed me, and how badly he wanted me back in his life. We decided to be "exclusive" after that. He told me, though, that he didn't want to use the terms boyfriend and girlfriend, because they "gave him the heebie jeebies." I kind of assumed this would last a little while, and that eventually we'd end up being together in that way, even if we avoided the terminology.
So over the last three months, we have had a great time, and everything is nearly perfect. But he still introduces me to people as his "friend." Seriously, everything else about our relationship is great — we get along with each other's friends! We make each other CDs! We share our writing! But it's hard to enjoy all of this and take it seriously when I know we are not completely "together."
I recently brought up my trust issues, because my ex-boyfriend, who I'd been with for three-and-a-half years, cheated on me with four different women (and they weren't just hookups — the guy had actual relationships with these ladies). I told the dude I'm seeing now that I worry often that I'm going to get hurt in this "relationship," and that I'm being naive, because I was deceived so badly by my ex. This upset him; and he eventually told me that he doesn't consider himself a guy worth trusting, confessing that he had cheated on his ex-girlfriends habitually. He also still doesn't want to fully commit to me (because he's made it clear that, to him, there is still a difference between us "dating" and "going out;" the amount of gray area in our relationship is frankly ridiculous). I took the hint. I told him that "staying together" as whatever we were probably didn't make sense, but I'd want to stay friends.
His response was that imagining his life without me in it seemed unendurable, so he would want to stay friends. But also? He told me he loved me. And that he'd wanted to tell me for a while. But to him, loving me doesn't come with "conditions," like commitment. Now I'm not sure what's going on. I guess we're friends, but I don't know what to do with the knowledge that he (thinks he) loves me. I'm crazy about this dude and I just want to be with him, but it's clear that he's not ready for a real relationship where cheating is a no-go. And still, neither of us wants to let go. Am I not progressive enough; should I just try to be cool with a non-monogamous thing? Or should I dump the dude altogether and cry into my wine for a couple of weeks?
— Loved and Lost
Dear Loved and Lost,
Whoa now, let's hold our horses! Non-monogamy is not some form of "advanced" relationship behavior that only the most progressive and open-minded have access to. It works for some people, but it most certainly does not work for all. Strike that from the options list: it doesn't sound like you're cut from that cloth, and that is absolutely fine.
The fact that your guy "doesn't consider himself trustworthy" is the most bedazzled of all red flags. It's particularly bad because he phrases it like he himself is the biggest victim of his own actions, like he has absolutely no control over the things he does. ("But baby, I really did spill coffee on that girl's shirt and then have to get totally naked in the process of cleaning it up!") Unless his name is Dr. Jekyll, he has no business disavowing responsibility for his actions. Until he can learn to weigh his own desires over people he may hurt, he will be a terrible partner.
He ultimately has to decide which it is: does he love you and want to be with you (with the knowledge that he'll have to be extra-careful with his coffee)? Or does he want to remain unaccountable to anyone, least of all himself? Spoiler for your boyfriend: the latter is impossible, and that attitude will collapse on him like a condemned building. Maybe he'll have to learn that for himself. The point is, he can't have it both ways.
You seem to have a clear idea of what you want and need, and he lacks the ability (or, likely, capacity) to provide that. Move on. He may be able to pull himself together and become what you need, but the fact remains that at this moment, he is not that person.
Want to meet someone who considers himself trustworthy? Head for Hooksexup Dating.
Commentarium (39 Comments)
I'm glad Cait is so reasonable about the issue of monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships. Sometimes I feel like one side judges the other so negatively, such as being a broken or slutty couple or the other is prude and unprogressive.
Hard to evaluate Loved and Lost's situation without knowing the ages of the people involved; asking for a commitment (or avoiding it) is different when you're in your early 20s vs. your late 30s.
Still, it all boils down to the fact that she wants to be monogamous and sees that as a requirement for loving each other, and he doesn't. There's nothing wrong with her wanting monogamy -- but there's also nothing wrong with him for NOT wanting it. Since there isn't really a way to compromise on this one, I guess they'll have to go their separate ways.
BTW I think Miss Information makes too much out of the "doesn't consider himself trustworthy" thing. His is not the best way to express it, but he's basically saying "I'm not monogamous by nature, and don't want to promise that I'll be monogamous, because it's not who I am or what I want right now." We're socialized to believe that trustworthiness = monogamy, and not everyone knows how to talk about their non-monogamous desires without using words with negative associations.
Trustworthiness does equal monogamy in this instance. She wants it and he doesn't, but he also doesn't want to lose her. The point is that he doesn't think he can control himself and not cheat. Regardless of what he wants, he doesn't consider himself capable of not cheating, which is because he isn't trustworthy and can't control himself. He's right to negatively associate his non-monogamous desires because he's stringing along a girl he knows has no interest in that kind of relationship. If he's not ashamed of his desires then he should let her go and not be a baby about trying to get her to agree that him cheating is okay. He just wants to do whatever he wants without regard for the woman he "loves" feelings.
I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but couldn't you rewrite your post with the roles switched around, and have it be just about as true? He wants non-monogamy and she doesn't, but she also doesn't want to lose HIM. Each of them wants the other one to do something they don't really want to do, so it's a draw in that regard -- unless you think that someone who wants monogamy automatically gets the moral high ground over someone who doesn't, or that you don't actually "love" someone if you still want to be able to have sex with other people.
I guess I just don't think that it's a guy's job to preemptively sever ties with a woman so that she'll be protected from the fact that he's not ready to commit to her. We're not living in the Victorian era. Women are grown-ups, and if they're not getting what they want, they need to take responsibility for changing the situation. This guy is being relatively upfront and giving her everything she needs to make a decision; it's not his job to make that decision for her.
That said, I think the guy's refusal to call each other boyfriend and girlfriend, and weird bet-hedging, is a little ridiculous. But I still think he's trying to do the right thing in some ass-backwards way; otherwise he'd just agree to her terms and cheat when she wasn't looking. As is so often the case, though, trying to do the right thing ends up making a bigger mess.
he is being upfront, but i feel like people often say as long as they are being honest, then the onus is on the person to whom they are being honest when sometimes, the person, even if they are being honest, should take a step back and say, this person is not listening to what i have to say, i should end it now before it leads to more hurt.
Smiths is right on. And also, regardless of whoever has the moral highground...the guy in that situation is saying that he doesn't think he should be trusted, which is fine.
BUT if you're going to say that, you should be ABSTAINING from the activity that you can't trust yourself with...wouldn't that be the solution? I'm not saying it's the only choice he has, but you cannot simultaneously be free to do whatever you want and also be exempt from accountability for those actions. It's almost as if people forget that while no one has complete control over their future actions, they are still the product of YOUR intentions.
Right on, Smiths and ... . It's kind of a words v. actions thing--you can talk a big game about responsibility, but if you keep behaving non-responsibly, it's just empty words.
I'm not sure that age really matters in loved and lost's case. 'now is the point in the relationship where i want to be exclusive, and thought of and introduced as your (boy/girlfriend)' isn't some huge onerous 'ok, now we make babies' demand of eternal commitment.
And I'm with miss info on the his behavior is fraught with red flags front as well. saying that it just boils down to she wants monogamy and he doesn't is really an oversimplification. he's latched onto not using the terms of monogamy, despite agreeing to be monogamous. like somehow if he doesn't introduce her as his girlfriend, being exclusive isnt as important. now, no value judgments here. if he wants a non-monogamous relationship, then great, he should go for it. but when the non-monogamous date the monogamous, one of them will have to accept the other's status as being the terms of the relationship. if being monogamous is a deal-breaker, he should cowboy up, tell her so, and get out of her life. there is a difference between being non-monogamous and being a monogamous cheater. society at large may operate on a trustworthy = monogamy structure, but the self-selected group that frequents Hooksexup definitely has a progressive and cool = non-monogamy structure happening too. i think given what L&L has told us, that ascribing totally noble 'i'm upstandingly non-monogamous but conflicted about it' intentions to her guy's 'i don't want to be exclusive with you because i'm a habitual cheater' statements is not really appropriate. She should be totally ok with realizing that non-monogamy is a deal-breaker for her, and that 'exclusivity' coupled with a refusal to publicly treat the relationship as romantic is a pretty hollow bit of lip-service paid to monogamy, and move on.
I appreciate your thoughtful post, and in many ways I actually agree. Still, I do think that most of the replies here have at least a subtle bias towards monogamy, and especially towards thinking that her feelings for him are more "real" (for want of a better word) than his for her, because she wants to be exclusive.
As for his terminology problem, I think it's all of a piece. He wants to be with her, spend time with her, love her, and have sex with her, but saying "boyfriend/girlfriend" to him implies a permanent commitment to monogamy. And they did agree to be monogamous, but in an inherently temporary way. It's really a case of two people wanting different things, and trying to find a way of talking about it that doesn't force the issue.
The terminology problem is a good point, and the LW doesn't go into it too much--but there would be ways to imply fondness/stability without using the words "boyfriend/girlfriend," if his problem really lies with just those two words. I've had friends refer to their S.O.s as "my boo," "my old lady," "my dude," whatever. The point is the same, and the term can be as cheeky as you want. It seems like the sentiment behind the words is what is lacking, not necessarily the words themselves.
I don't really think it's about being monogamous or non-monogamous. It really just seems to me that he knows what she wants to hear and says it when she's about to walk away. She told him twice that she wasn't okay with how things are going and would be fine just being friends or whatever and he pulls some speech out of his ass that he knows would make her stay and put up with him longer. That's what makes him not trustworthy and gives her the moral high ground. He really just seems like he's playing her so he can keep getting what he wants but then when she finds out he slept with someone else he can pull the "we weren't a couple" card and seem like he did nothing wrong.
everyone wants to refer to themselves as "progressive and cool".
Reminds my of 1996 when it was "progressive and cool" to be a hippie, again.
What is with guys like the one in the 2nd letter? They want all the perks of having a girlfriend without actually having to act like a boyfriend.
LW1: I think your initial instinct not to get involved with this guy mid-gestation is a wise one. Who knows how you'll feel about him after everything's said and done. Your current situation might be dredging up a whole bunch of latent nesting instincts for both of you, but it's probably best to wait and see how compatible you two are at a later date. He might not "wait for you" the whole time, but if he's really into you, he might make sure he's available when you're ready.
LW2: It sounds like both of these people honestly care for each other and realize deep down that it probably won't work no matter how much they try to reframe the commitment/non-commitment issue. She doesn't want to just be a "friend" because to her, that signifies that's she's not good enough for a commitment. But he's afraid to give her the girlfriend label because he's afraid that he'll get bored/trapped/whatever and start cheating on her like he did on all the rest. So instead, they're dancing around trying to stay in the almost-gf DMZ.
Hopefully each of them will manage to exceed their own expectations before the inevitably painful end.
Even Dr. Jekyl had to take responsibility for his actions. He knowingly drank the formula that caused the transformation. If L&L doesn't like the guys commitment issues, it's time to walk. None of this "let's be friends b.s." That's only a means to try and maintain the status quo, or return to it.
I love that you just dropped some Robert Louis Stevenson knowledge into this thread. Yes!
Women need to listen - really listen - to what guys say -this guy says he's not boyfriend material.
Also- past actions predict the most likely course of future actions - he's a cheat.
The reason guys expect the perks without having to act like a boyfriend - is because some women let them.
seriously. there are SO MANY OTHER fish in the sea. let this asshole go!! y'all deserve someone so much better!
But at the same time, I think these situations are a product of people always wanting to be "cool and progressive" rather than really sticking to their gut instinct and saying, I want [monogamy, non-monogamy, etc.]. If you can't offer [monogamy, non-monogamy, etc.], you don't have what I want.
I think a lot of women are more prone to enter into romantic relationships without explicitly addressing the specific expectations and terms of the relationship, mostly because they are afraid of what they might hear and/or afraid of being seen as "clingy" and "needy". The fear of being rejected off the bat because of one's ideals is greater than the fear of being hurt by expectations that were never set.
I wouldn't commit because I used to cheat and I didn't want to lie, so for a while I would insist on an open relationship, the terms being that I admit to attraction before anything else, and no matter what I would bring it up before cheating occurred. Turned out, this was just a defense mechanism, I liked the guy a lot, I never wanted to cheat, and I didn't. We've since parted ways but it was a great experience. None of us can really know this guy really is and the tricks/games and label-avoidance that's really going on, but just because he doesn't trust himself doesn't mean you can't work harder on communication. And I'm not saying only you have to work. He does too, he needs to dig really deep.
To LW#1: it's possible that part of the appeal to this guy friend is the fact that you are pregnant, as there are plenty of guys out there who get very excited at the thought of having sex with a pregnant woman, but if your emotions are all over the place, perhaps "testing the waters" is not the best idea at this point in time.
Eat more donuts?? that's advice for a pregnant woman?
Tongue firmly in cheek. But your nutritional concern is touching.
I had a swinger friend once tell me that their relationship was just "more evolved." What horseshit. It's DIFFERENT, not advanced. Of course, with Dan Savage on his continuing crusade to tell people that it's EXPECTED for committed couples to have a couple of threesomes a year, I can see why some of our younger folks might think this way.
apparently (according to "monogamish" couples, read dudes) humans weren't evolved to be monogamous.
Of course, we didn't evolve to shit in a toilet either; I do enjoy that though.
That's sort of unfair, since I've known (and dated) some women who were interested in non-monogamy. OTOH, as soon as things get serious, all their interest in threesomes, etc. suddenly evaporates...
some people can't be monogamous, that's true. those people, especially the ones who cheat, are usually selfish. really, how hard is it to control oneself?
Hi there! Potential adoptive parent and loyal Hooksexup reader here. On behalf of couples trying to adopt everywhere, thank you for your generous and wonderful choice.
If you have any interest in talking to us or our agency about possible placements, please let me know.
Thanks!
Hmm. The second letter writer wants him to change his beliefs and become monogamous, but it's wrong for her to change her beliefs and not be monogamous? The two obviously shouldn't be together, but neither want to change, and neither should have to change. He has done nothing wrong and been honest with her, which is more than most people are.
LW2-
People tell you who they are. But not always as literally as this guy. I suggest you listen to him and DTFMA.
LW2: the issue of whether or not "non monogamy" is more evolved than monogamy, is a complete red herring in your case. Here's the only question you need to ask yourself: if you think you feel like crap now, how much worse do you think you're going to feel when this bullshit has been dragging on for two or three years? You may love this guy, but this stuff is not going to change. I think you know this, and are afraid of the pain that separating from him will cause you. But truly, honestly, your only two choices here are, "pain now, after loving him for 6 months" or "exponentially more pain later, after loving him for several years". You say your last boyfriend was a serial cheater. Sounds like a pattern. You are worth being loved completely; work on learning that as you start dating again.
Re LW1:
"You shouldn't feel like this moment is your one and only shot, or that you have to catch this guy before he slips away. If that turns out to be the case, then he wasn't worth it to begin with."
That is way harsh, Cait. I think sometimes you could bear in mind that the others in these situations probably read this column too (or at least other folk out there in similar positions). They deserve some consideration too.
You can't judge a guy's worth based on whether or not something else comes into his life while he is been put on hold. Or even if he just doesn't accept the offer to wait six to nine months before even beginning to see what happens when they get serious.
If LW1 puts the recommended position to him (and I agree that sounds like the best plan), then he legitimately has an active decision to make, and it doesn't make him "not worth it" to decide that it's not for him. It is actually reasonable for him to decline the terms. It might be sad, or poignant or regrettable if he ends up steering a different course, but that doesn't make him unworthy - it's just life not going her way. Ships pass in the night all the time.
I agree with your advice about strategy, Cait, but LW1 needs to take responsibility for the potential consequences of the choice she's making, not transfer them onto the man if she finds she doesn't get what she wants. "Well then he didn't deserve you anyway" is just a cop-out. You don't know anything about his situation, and there are plenty of totally solid reasons he might not go for this that have nothing to do with his worth as a person.
I love what I assume is a "Clueless" reference.
I will concede there is some wording ambiguity on "is worth it"--I don't mean to say "the dude sucks at things" or "he is awful as a person" or "he has a stupid haircut." By "is worth it", I mean, "worth the gamble of putting oneself into an even more precarious situation." The LW's question revolves around her own feelings of instability and fears about a relationship throwing her even more off-kilter. From that perspective, I'm saying it's safer to stay balanced and then handle relationships later.
You're right about his still being a good guy even if he decides to pass on this situation: I totally agree with you, and I'm glad you brought it up. And perhaps the position I should have made more clear was my definition of "if it doesn't work." He can still continue to be a good friend, and/or be a source of support, even if they don't end up dating--which is, I think, a "best-case scenario" in its own way. I tend to take a long view on relationships, which means that they sometimes take months or even years to line up right: a friend and supporter can sometimes evolve into a boy/girlfriend, but forcing inconvenient timing need not happen.
But, yeah, you're right: this isn't necessarily a litmus test of his value as a human, and I didn't mean to imply it was.
Check out that novel I just wrote. Sorry, readers. You just enrolled in English 204: David-Foster-Wallace-style footnotes.
Great response Cait, and sorry if I came out of the blocks a bit fast there. That's all fair enough, and I stand corrected on what you were getting at. You are very patient.
Actually, you *should* write a novel, you have a lot to say and a great prose style. I would certainly read it. And even buy it first! Please get your publisher to distribute it to all those lovely local bookstores we all want to support instead of shopping at the Evil Warehouse Empire.
re: letter #2, here's something i've wrestled with a long time that i'd welcome some thoughts on. i've dated different types of women but consider it ironic that some of the most compelling ones are also the least likely to want to be nailed down into a relationship. there is something exciting about the free spirit type that i can't deny, and is a part of me as well. so how the heck do ya resolve that if what you're looking for (or think you're looking for, but maybe you don't know yourself as well as you think!) is a relationship?
LW#2, I have been you, except neither us had ever cheated, and after breaking up with him after four months of dating because I wanted more than he did, he came back begging to date again, and we were monogamous. He did balk at "boyfriend/girlfriend," but when after four months I revisited the issue, he accepted the label, and even introduced me to all his friends as his girlfriend. But, after a year, he broke up with me, because, again, he could not see a future with us, and was not prepared to get emotionally invested. And again, I know I want someone who's committed for the foreseeable future. I say all this because: As someone upthread said, people tell you who they are. Mine tried to change his spots, valiantly, but in the end could not. Get out, cry, drink wine, but move on.
hurry up and f*%k him!! (unprotected)
"Order extra donuts." ?!
What the ....!
A stupid word to a pregnant woman - even if it's irony.
And now I want donuts.
Now you say something