I am currently in a long-term relationship with one man and wrestling with feelings for a childhood friend. The relationship that I’m in has lasted almost 15 years. He provides, treats me right and is loyal. But our relationship has not progressed toward marriage or engagement due to him wanting to be more financially stable. He also supports his mother and grandmother. I do want to believe that the years of loyalty and love that I have put in can mean something, but I’m not satisfied with the current state of our relationship (for example, he doesn’t prioritize romance or experiences like travel for the two of us). Should I stay in my current relationship, or leave it and explore love with my crush?
The sunk-cost fallacy is a hell of a drug. Our brains get mired in the throes of the fallacy when we feel we can’t do what we really want, simply because we’ve already invested so much in what we currently have. It’s a thorny thicket that can keep us stagnant at the pivotal moments requiring the most courage. And the moments that require the most courage often bring the most blessings.
You know what’s another hell of a drug? Grass is Greener Syndrome. It makes sense that these two very compelling mind-alterers are waging a war in your mind. It’s hard to leave your man because you’ve given so much already. It’s hard to stay with him because you’re constantly reminded that your relationship does not come first for him, and that there are others who can give you things that he cannot. I don’t blame you for questioning, well, your entire relational existence.
I have a truth for you: Men are socialized to assert themselves and unabashedly pursue what they desire. They are ruled by the territorialism of their ego more often than they are by love, and they might not even always be aware of that. A man locks in a woman as his girlfriend, fiancée or wife not necessarily because he loves her (although love is usually present). It’s because they don’t want another man to have her. To compound matters, the masculine ego trap also tells a man that he’s not worthy of what he wants until he achieves some nebulous milestone that, again, sets him apart from other men. The tragedy here occurs when men fixate so irrevocably on some highly subjective goal that they miss out on being present for the journey — which is the whole point and pleasure of being in communion with others.
The fact that he hasn’t locked you down after so many years is not because he wants to “be more stable,” even if he’s telling himself that. It’s because he is enjoying the benefits of an arrangement where he can have it all. His lack of initiative in romance and curating expansive experiences to bring you closer is further evidence of this, and it’s all at the expense of the relationship and your fulfillment. (His alleged commitment-phobia also doesn’t really check out here, because 10-plus years together already constitute a common-law marriage in many states.)
Now, I have questions for you. No person is perfect, and no relationship “has it all.” So what is nonnegotiable for you and what isn’t? Do you require a man who is romantic, who takes you places, who claims you at a higher level? And if he did all the things that you wished he did, would you feel as excited about your childhood crush? Is it that you need those things to feel whole? Or is it that you wish they would come from him, and have given up on him being able to meet those needs?
Either way, not all hope is lost. Like all life-altering choices, there is never a “perfect” time to execute them, and it’s impossible to navigate them perfectly. Your concerns about the relationship, including your crush, can be explored in couples therapy. A professional can help you parse your options, and maybe even remind you both of what drew you to each other in the first place. Whether it’s a total relationship overhaul, a breakup, marriage, a pause in the relationship for both of you to have some time with yourselves, or even non-monogamy, the end of an era and the beginning of another can be yours to have and to hold.
Almost 15 years together is a long time — especially if you met young. Give yourself (and him) grace for that, as he’s likely harboring feelings of his own around the state of the partnership. A decade and a half together is long enough to risk being honest. This is someone who has seen so many iterations of you, and you of them. That’s a precious kind of intimacy. This could also be an opportunity for them to perform the “love exercise” of having grace and compassion for you, and attuning to your needs more deeply.
And now, if you were my friend, I’d tell you this. Having feelings for someone else is more common in long-term relationships than we as a society like to admit, and it’s usually just a symptom of a conversation you need to have with your partner about what specific need they aren’t fulfilling for you. If you are someone for whom legal marriage status, a ring and/or a wedding are genuinely important (nothing wrong with that), then almost 15 years is a really, really f— long time to act like a wife to a man who hasn’t married you.
The dignity of sovereign womanhood aside, it’s also a genuine life partnership concern. Who has power of attorney if one of you gets seriously ill or injured? What about shared assets in the case of a major life event? What are the tax implications? These are things worth seriously considering at the decade-plus mark.
This crush, as tantalizing as it may feel, is less of the answer to all of your problems, and more a catalyst for understanding something deeper about a relationship that has been profoundly intertwined with your existence and sense of self for so long that you almost need these uncomfortable feelings to actually question it. Instead of running to the crush as the solution to your unhappiness (because I assure you, they aren’t), get curious about what your feelings for this person are trying to teach or show you. Don’t miss the bone for the meat.
The post Should I stay in my stagnant long-term relationship, or leave it to explore love with my crush? appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
