Good advice. Reminds me of the poor girl that moved to england to be with a turd.

Here's a way I'm willing to cut the boyfriend a break. This is going to perpetuate a stereotype, but in my opinion a lot of men aren't in touch with their feelings enough to know how they'll feel when they meet "the one." He could be asking her to move in what seems to him like "good faith" because he thinks (sort of) "She could be the one," when in reality, his feelings are more like, "She'll do." He may not know how a guy feels and acts when he meets "The one," because the lightning has never really struck him concerning any woman. (Sorry that hurts, I've been there!) Some guys think they are loving someone "enough" by not dating others while in a relationship...they just haven't ever been struck by the lightning that motivates a man to move heaven and earth. They may think, "She has this, that, and the other quality, sizing it all up logically, she could do nicely" is "the real deal." I don't know how to explain this but he could be emotionally clueless and not emotionally astute enough to realize his true ambivalence or lack of committed passion. He may not be some kind of diabolical controller, but clueless and privileged to be thought in demand by a ready pool of women around him. He may think "Hmm, she's got this, that, and the other quality, she'll do" and thinks that is all there is to how other people make commitments.

I think if she was "the one" for him, he would be offering more. He would be worried someone would snap HER up off the market. He would be worried about losing HER not acting as if she is replaceable, as someone pointed out.

I have been there. And here is the good news. After letting go (NOT HAPPILY) of the one I thought I couldn't do better than (at least on externals)...I met someone who at first I wasn't attracted to, but with whom I have a LOT more fun. Then and only then did I realize that having fun and not being tense about where the relationship stands is a lot better than trying to make it work with the one who considers me replaceable. I do not think the one who considered me replaceable was evil or meant any harm. I don't think he was plotting diabolically to use me for a time and dump me. I think he didn't know there was any more to relationships than what he had to offer, and I feel sorry for him even though the rejection still smarts. I do not think he was a giving person because I think he was missing some things in his emotional makeup, and therefore, now that I am having a lot more fun, I can admit I wasn't having fun with him. I was trying to make him like me "enough."

Sex and the City was a book before it was a TV series. And I believe it was a newspaper column before it was a book. Written by a woman, Candace Bushnell. In my opinion, the entire point of the book was not about the things people seem to think from the TV series.

Just like every time they do a remake of the Great Gatsby, a whole bunch of people think it's about the cars, dances, jazz, expensive gowns, great houses, and bygone glamour, people make the same mistake about Sex and the City. The TV series seems on the surface to approve of, if not glamorize, a lifetsyle that the book actually questioned.

In my opinion, the book kept asking the question, "Why do we (as New York single women) stay and put up with this dating atmosphere? Why don't we hang it up and move where dating is normal? Give up on the materialism that plays into the vaunted New York lifestyle? Which of us wants to be the first to admit 'defeat' in the New York dating rat race and seek less glamourous but more emotionally fulfilling pastures? One of these days it might be me, I'm thinking about it, but meanwhile, aren't these shoes divine?" In other words, in the book, I do not think the trappings of that lifestyle were glamorized--but called into question instead. Just like people do with the Great Gatsby, I think people mistook the point by the time it was made into a TV series. People get dazzled by the clothes, the luxuries, the glamour--and there's always a new crop of women who want to come live that lifestyle and see if they can survive it without getting frantic, bitter, or lose their faith in love or whatever. Whoever said the TV series is written about gay men may be right, but I bet gay men have the same thing. I bet gay men all the time are thinking, "One of these days I am going to turn my back on shallow things and find more emotional fulfillment probably far from the city or party district and when I find the one, I won't care if he isn't fabulous"

Sorry if I perpetuated a gay stereotype there, I was just trying to match gay life to what I thought Sex and the City was about. I just get tired of people thinking Carrie Bradshaw was ever meant to be a role model. I am sure Candace Bushnell didn't mean her for a role model! maybe an object lesson!

As for the boyfriend, I'll start a new message.

>But then I see that letters like this serve some good purposes. They unite lots of Salon regulars who are normally at each others' (cyber) throats, they are entertaining in that kind of trainwreck way (yes, being in love makes you stupid sometimes, and here is a perfect example),<

"Sometimes?" From the sound of this LW's ghastly judgement, make that "All the freakin 'time." :)

>and they make the rest of us feel like we really have our lives together.<

Nah--I don't consider my life all _that_ together (though it's fairly nice.) However, letters like this do confirm that there are too many women out there who let lurve swamp their sense of identity. For me, reading these are lovely payback (to a degree,) for said women are always the ones who think feminism "didn't work" or "drove good men away"--and subconsciously look down on the rest of us who don't think love is the end-all, be-all. And the attitudes behind said letters also explain why there are so many screwed-up families and kids out there.