Anonymous wrote:Not sure which party is the immature one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks. We are already exclusive, each of us is naturally monogamous as a requirement for sex. Time with him is better than time spent alone. However, a deeper commitment would I think be derailed by some of the things I am starting to see. It has only been a month. He is kind and I do not want to hurt him.

By “immature” do you mean:

- he uses video games? Does he go out clubbing every night?

Is he more into his ride, the rims, his posse, than he is into you?

Do you ever see him as “father material” ??

Or would he bolt at the prospect of marrying you? (Like: marrying forever? Forever ever???).

OP. I choose not to share these specific details as I do not want to unintentionally identify him and also, it’s not really the essence of the question. I understand people are pruriently curious, but you will have to accept that a) this is not my information to disclose and b) my opinion (and not yours) about our long-term compatibility in light of these features is what matters IRL.

That is ridiculous.

DP, not the OP, but yours is the attitude that OPs should be obliged to give specific details when no, they do not owe you any details.

I've seen so many threads on DCUM get derailed quickly when an OP gives in to PPs like you and adds details. Then posters either

(1) Start going off on tangents based on what they think they see in those details, and do not give an OP any actual advice about the real question, or
(2) Shout "Troll!" because they insist (sometimes after ASKING for more details) that if an OP doesn't give the "full story" in every detail from the very start, then that OP must be a troll who is trying to keep a fictional story going.

Both those things are indeed ridiculous.

OP is right not to give you more to chew on, and right to redirect you back to the actual question she asked.

She posted looking for advice, but won't give enough information to allow people to give her advice. We can call her out on that.
"immature" is very vague. And to provide nothing more than "immature" is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks. We are already exclusive, each of us is naturally monogamous as a requirement for sex. Time with him is better than time spent alone. However, a deeper commitment would I think be derailed by some of the things I am starting to see. It has only been a month. He is kind and I do not want to hurt him.

By “immature” do you mean:

- he uses video games? Does he go out clubbing every night?

Is he more into his ride, the rims, his posse, than he is into you?

Do you ever see him as “father material” ??

Or would he bolt at the prospect of marrying you? (Like: marrying forever? Forever ever???).

OP. I choose not to share these specific details as I do not want to unintentionally identify him and also, it’s not really the essence of the question. I understand people are pruriently curious, but you will have to accept that a) this is not my information to disclose and b) my opinion (and not yours) about our long-term compatibility in light of these features is what matters IRL.

That is ridiculous.

DP, not the OP, but yours is the attitude that OPs should be obliged to give specific details when no, they do not owe you any details.

I've seen so many threads on DCUM get derailed quickly when an OP gives in to PPs like you and adds details. Then posters either

(1) Start going off on tangents based on what they think they see in those details, and do not give an OP any actual advice about the real question, or
(2) Shout "Troll!" because they insist (sometimes after ASKING for more details) that if an OP doesn't give the "full story" in every detail from the very start, then that OP must be a troll who is trying to keep a fictional story going.

Both those things are indeed ridiculous.

OP is right not to give you more to chew on, and right to redirect you back to the actual question she asked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks. We are already exclusive, each of us is naturally monogamous as a requirement for sex. Time with him is better than time spent alone. However, a deeper commitment would I think be derailed by some of the things I am starting to see. It has only been a month. He is kind and I do not want to hurt him.

By “immature” do you mean:

- he uses video games? Does he go out clubbing every night?

Is he more into his ride, the rims, his posse, than he is into you?

Do you ever see him as “father material” ??

Or would he bolt at the prospect of marrying you? (Like: marrying forever? Forever ever???).

OP. I choose not to share these specific details as I do not want to unintentionally identify him and also, it’s not really the essence of the question. I understand people are pruriently curious, but you will have to accept that a) this is not my information to disclose and b) my opinion (and not yours) about our long-term compatibility in light of these features is what matters IRL.

That is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:I think it is wonderful that a guy in his fifties is still great in bed! 👍🏽

Because many guys in that age range have issues in that area. 🥀

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s not an “ethical” problem. Am ethical problem would be if he were married or wanted by the police.

Your terminology is off.

OP. I think it is an ethical problem to lead someone on if you are both interested in a serious relationship/long term commitment but not with the other person. Time is valuable, no matter your age, and wasting someone’s time is unethical IMO.

If you're interested in a serious relationship, aren't you also wasting your own time?