There seems to be no future for us

[CynicalQuixotic]

But couldn't you just as well argue that if you love someone enough, you don't make them leave their home? It's an infinite spiral that way.
You have to live somewhere, though and if you don't move to a third country, then does one party always "not love enough"?

Imho it's important to put your own wellbeing first. I love my husband, but I wouldn't do something or move somewhere that made me miserable. I would also never want him to be miserable. Yes, he was miserable when we first moved, but he himself knew it was only a phase and he wanted to live here not only for me.
Sometimes you can love someone, but the circumstances just aren't right. It doesn't mean that you don't love them enough.

Exactly. Love is not the be-all and end-all of everything. Love is not enough to make you happy with your life--there are so many other factors, some of which are deal-breakers.

I don't mean to highjack this thread, and I know we have not had the most harmonious of relationships on this board, but I mean this in the most conciliatory of ways: the tone of your posts lately has been really, really concerning, Hollandia. It's one thing to mourn the life you are giving up to move on to something new, but I think telling someone whose relationship circumstances you know next to nothing about (well, besides what they've told you here) that not being willing to give up your entire life to move to a different country means that you don't love the person enough (and that being somehow a nigh-unforgivable thing) says a lot. Nobody is going to give you a medal for sacrificing everything you seem to hold dear and making yourself as miserable as you seem In The Name of Love.

I really do hope things work out for everyone involved. (Both in Hollandia's case and the OP.)

[Dziubka]

It is not about "making" someone leave their home, it is about jointly making the best decition as a couple.

But if one party doesn't want to leave their home at all, then the best decision would be for the other party to move there. Because if you love your partner, you don't want them to be miserable or make them do something they don't want. If for some reason it's not possible to move there, then I don't think there's a solution for that.
So who's not loving enough, then? The person who doesn't want to move? Or the person who wants to make the other person move? I would rather my SO be happy without me, than unhappy with me. It sounds trite and and like something from a sappy movie, but it's the truth.

My whole point was, that it's not fair and too easy to say "If you love/d enough, you'd move!". Yes, I love my husband. No, I would not move to somewhere where I didn't want to be for him. It doesn't mean that I don't love him enough. It means that I look after myself.
Yes, if noone's willing to move and you don't want to stay ld forever, then your relationship isn't going to work out. A relationship that would make you miserable isn't supposed to work out.

[differentcountries]

But if one party doesn't want to leave their home at all, then the best decision would be for the other party to move there. Because if you love your partner, you don't want them to be miserable or make them do something they don't want. If for some reason it's not possible to move there, then I don't think there's a solution for that.
So who's not loving enough, then? The person who doesn't want to move? Or the person who wants to make the other person move? I would rather my SO be happy without me, than unhappy with me. It sounds trite and and like something from a sappy movie, but it's the truth.

My whole point was, that it's not fair and too easy to say "If you love/d enough, you'd move!". Yes, I love my husband. No, I would not move to somewhere where I didn't want to be for him. It doesn't mean that I don't love him enough. It means that I look after myself.
Yes, if noone's willing to move and you don't want to stay ld forever, then your relationship isn't going to work out. A relationship that would make you miserable isn't supposed to work out.

Haha, I am pretty much lots miserable with our nomadism, but I put this on myself. He never asked me to do it. I would also never ask him to do something. That is something he will have to decide for myself. I guess what I am trying to say is that if a relationship moves slowly and steadily, this situation looks a bit different than "who will win the move". I don't ever think in terms like "would he rather be happier with or without me", I don't feel guilty for being in his life. Both with or without me his life is probably going to be both happy and sad, like any other lives I know. When he met me, he was sad, in fact his sister had recently died (I did not know about his until way later), I was for him something to shake him out of that. At the same time, I am part of both real and potentional conflicts that he has with friends and family, where both distance and poly plays a part. I do hope that however we struture it, it ends up falling down on the "more happy than sad about decitions made" for both of us. But I am willing to wait quite a long time for those questions to finally settle.

You talk about things not being "possable" but you are really talking about a preferance. Not beling possable is more like, physically or legally not being able to move. Which is a challenge we could face since we can't close the distance with marriage, and perhaps studies/work will not work out so well as well, in which case me (and my husband) moving to Turkey would be the more likely option. I am probably not so keen on moving to Turkey if it came down to it, but at least I have went through the different possablities in my head and not decided right away that there "is" not option of me going to him. I would not really know how much of an option it was if I did not research a lot into it. I also think that if a move is going to be right, we should put ourselves in the possable uncomfortable situation mentally, like "what if I was the one going to move?". Loving is also imagining how things are like for the other, to explore the dangerous and the unknown with them.

There are no easy answers here, it is just I sometimes react to people saying they want the other person to move and never even considered it themselves, because unless the other person is already superkeen on moving that is asking the other person to be more flexible in ways that oneselves are not. Which is fine if that is your priority, but then you have to make it up in other ways. My husband always talks about that if SO moves to us permanently, SO should be the one to decide where exctly we shall live and lots of other details of our lives, an idea which used to make me mad, but now I see that he is totally right, it should always feel like a joint effort.

[Hollandia]

But couldn't you just as well argue that if you love someone enough, you don't make them leave their home? It's an infinite spiral that way.
You have to live somewhere, though and if you don't move to a third country, then does one party always "not love enough"?

Imho it's important to put your own wellbeing first. I love my husband, but I wouldn't do something or move somewhere that made me miserable. I would also never want him to be miserable. Yes, he was miserable when we first moved, but he himself knew it was only a phase and he wanted to live here not only for me.
Sometimes you can love someone, but the circumstances just aren't right. It doesn't mean that you don't love them enough.

For me I put him first. If I had to choose between him and me being miserable I would choose me, and my SO is the same way. True love is when you love someone enough to put them first. I think both are us are fairly miserable about leaving our countries, but we love each other to do it. I am going to have to agree to disagree with you. I do think you should be willing to be miserable if that is what it takes to be together, otherwise you are choosing your country over your partner.

How about if both partners would be miserable, should the couple just stay apart because they simply don't want to leave their country? Do they still love each other enough but yet neither partner is willing to make that sacrifice? This is not about people that can't because of kids or ill parents, I am speaking about the reasons I mentioned. Being homesick, missing your favorite brands and local hangouts and your friends and not knowing the culture of the language. Been there done that, it sucks, but what would suck so much more is not being with my SO, because I love him enough to suffer through all that and more.

[Hollandia]

Exactly. Love is not the be-all and end-all of everything. Love is not enough to make you happy with your life--there are so many other factors, some of which are deal-breakers.

I don't mean to highjack this thread, and I know we have not had the most harmonious of relationships on this board, but I mean this in the most conciliatory of ways: the tone of your posts lately has been really, really concerning, Hollandia. It's one thing to mourn the life you are giving up to move on to something new, but I think telling someone whose relationship circumstances you know next to nothing about (well, besides what they've told you here) that not being willing to give up your entire life to move to a different country means that you don't love the person enough (and that being somehow a nigh-unforgivable thing) says a lot. Nobody is going to give you a medal for sacrificing everything you seem to hold dear and making yourself as miserable as you seem In The Name of Love.

I really do hope things work out for everyone involved. (Both in Hollandia's case and the OP.)

Nobody asked them too, and I state my experiences and knowledge on here just as much as you, so don't lecture me.

If you can't get over simply being homesick then I still believe you don't love your SO enough. Unless you are fine to be in a perpetual LDR, which some are, then don't get into one unless you are also willing to move unless as I said you have small children or an ailing parents. Everything else can be started fresh. Sell your car, sell your house, move your pets, get a new job ( once you have a permit) and start a new life together. I think it is selfish not to be willing to make sacrifices for your partner and nothing you can say will change my mind about that.

Things are my case are going to be just as I said. I sold my car, I will sell my house, I will get a new job, and move to a new country to start fresh new life with my SO. He sold his car, giving up his apartment, and got a new job and he is moving to a new country as well to start fresh with me.

If the OP's SO has a legitimate reason for not moving like those I mentioned it is one thing but if it just "harder on her" since she gets homesick, boo frakin hoo. She has a choice to make and so does he, which is more important staying in your home country or being with the love of your life. I made my choice and now his SO will make hers.

[Hollandia]

But if one party doesn't want to leave their home at all, then the best decision would be for the other party to move there. Because if you love your partner, you don't want them to be miserable or make them do something they don't want. If for some reason it's not possible to move there, then I don't think there's a solution for that.
So who's not loving enough, then? The person who doesn't want to move? Or the person who wants to make the other person move? I would rather my SO be happy without me, than unhappy with me. It sounds trite and and like something from a sappy movie, but it's the truth.

My whole point was, that it's not fair and too easy to say "If you love/d enough, you'd move!". Yes, I love my husband. No, I would not move to somewhere where I didn't want to be for him. It doesn't mean that I don't love him enough. It means that I look after myself.
Yes, if noone's willing to move and you don't want to stay ld forever, then your relationship isn't going to work out. A relationship that would make you miserable isn't supposed to work out.

Both should be willing and then the couple decides together which would be better for their future. It is unfair for one to cry how hard it is them. If you are adult enough to be in an LDR then you should be adult enough to do that for your love. I am homesick but I am not 12 anymore so I am not going to cry boo hoo, I want to go home, I push through because of the love that I have for my SO is stronger than the pain I feel. Being a grown up is about not always putting your wants first because they want we are really talking about wants, not needs.

A great example of this is military family members. If you marry someone in the military like my sister in law did, you could end up packing up your kids and life repeatedly to go live where the military sends your spouse. I happen to know she hated a few of the places but it was nothing compared to pain of when he was away in wartime, she loved her husband and so they stayed together. She was willing to make that sacrifice for him and in the end her kids became quite cultured and eventually were able to settle down in an amazing house in orange country CA.

The bottom line is which she be more miserable without him in her life or more miserable leaving her country? I believe that is a no brainer, and both partners should be willing to answer that question the same way or else, don't move, because if the love is not strong enough then 3 kids and 10 years of marriage and life from now you will regret it. Life is about the long haul and moving to another country to be with your love is what you do when you have picked a life partner, if you are not willing to live anywhere to be with that person, then don't. People that don't put you first will drift away when the new love runs out in five years or so.

[Dziubka]

I'm sorry for kind of hijacking this thread, but it's still somewhat relevant to the topic so I'll post anyway.

For me I put him first. If I had to choose between him and me being miserable I would choose me, and my SO is the same way. True love is when you love someone enough to put them first. I think both are us are fairly miserable about leaving our countries, but we love each other to do it. I am going to have to agree to disagree with you. I do think you should be willing to be miserable if that is what it takes to be together, otherwise you are choosing your country over your partner.

Not my country (I really couldn't care less about "my country"), my wellbeing. Putting your partner of your own wellbeing is a terrible idea. Maybe I'm just a bad person and a terrible wife/girlfriend/partner, but that would guarantee to lead to resentment on my part and it would definitely not benefit our relationship. I don't think a relationship that makes you miserable is a good relationship. period.

How about if both partners would be miserable, should the couple just stay apart because they simply don't want to leave their country? Do they still love each other enough but yet neither partner is willing to make that sacrifice? This is not about people that can't because of kids or ill parents, I am speaking about the reasons I mentioned. Being homesick, missing your favorite brands and local hangouts and your friends and not knowing the culture of the language. Been there done that, it sucks, but what would suck so much more is not being with my SO, because I love him enough to suffer through all that and more.

If there's no way two people can be together without at least one of them being miserable and unhappy with the situation, then yes, they should stay apart. Or at least that's what I'd do in the situation, I can't really tell other people what to do. Like I said: I met my SO close distance, if we hadn't had the option of regular (once a month) visits and eventually closing the distance, I would not have pursued the relationship. I don't believe in "the one". I believe in being happy in a relationship, being with someone that I'm compatible with. And obviously if he wasn't willing to live somewhere where I wouldn't be miserable, then it's not going to work out.

(I actually don't really get homesick and I enjoy getting to know new hangouts, brands, friends, cultures and languages. So I can't really relate to that )


differentcountries:
I didn't really understand most of what you wrote. But what it boils down to (for me) is:
1. I don't think it makes sense to expect both/all people involved to be ready to move. We're all different and for some people that's a lot more difficult than for others. Hollandia seems to be dealing really badly with living in a foreign country where she doesn't know the language or culture, I've done it before and I loved it.
It's like this comic: https://karapflasterannex.weebly.com...37156_orig.jpg
My SO also doesn't get to decide other things, because we're living in my country. It made more sense for both of us, if he was going to hold it against me or be like "I decide what colour we paint the hallway because I moved to your country", I'd tell him to stfu and move back.

2. Sometimes it *is* actually not possible for someone to move somewhere, for visa restrictions, because they wouldn't be able to feed themselves after the move, etc. If the other person isn't ready to move and you don't want to stay long distance forever, then it's not working.

Both should be willing and then the couple decides together which would be better for their future. It is unfair for one to cry how hard it is them. If you are adult enough to be in an LDR then you should be adult enough to do that for your love. I am homesick but I am not 12 anymore so I am not going to cry boo hoo, I want to go home, I push through because of the love that I have for my SO is stronger than the pain I feel. Being a grown up is about not always putting your wants first because they want we are really talking about wants, not needs.

A great example of this is military family members. If you marry someone in the military like my sister in law did, you could end up packing up your kids and life repeatedly to go live where the military sends your spouse. I happen to know she hated a few of the places but it was nothing compared to pain of when he was away in wartime, she loved her husband and so they stayed together. She was willing to make that sacrifice for him and in the end her kids became quite cultured and eventually were able to settle down in an amazing house in orange country CA.

The bottom line is which she be more miserable without him in her life or more miserable leaving her country? I believe that is a no brainer, and both partners should be willing to answer that question the same way or else, don't move, because if the love is not strong enough then 3 kids and 10 years of marriage and life from now you will regret it. Life is about the long haul and moving to another country to be with your love is what you do when you have picked a life partner, if you are not willing to live anywhere to be with that person, then don't. People that don't put you first will drift away when the new love runs out in five years or so.

I don't think being ready to move to another country for your SO is necessarily part of being an adult. There are places in the world, where I would not want to live. I can't imagine ever living outside of a relatively big city anymore. If my SO happened to live in a rural place and wanted to stay there, then I would not make myself miserable by moving to him. To me part of being an adult is being able to look after yourself and know what makes you happy in the long run. If living with your SO -no matter where- is what makes you happy, then that's cool. But even being with my SO wouldn't outweigh how much I hate living in the countryside. I would rather be happy alone than miserable with my SO. I know for sure that living in a very rural place is going to make me miserable for an indefinite amount of time. Breaking up would hurt for a while, but I'm realistic enough to know that I'm not that weird or special and there are lots of people out there that I'm compatible with. Obviously, if my SO and I can't find a place to live where we both are happy, then we're not compatible.

I don't want my SO to put me first. I don't want that kind of responsibility and I don't put it on my partner. I will look after him as good as I can, but in the end, he's the one responsible for his wellbeing and I'm responsible for mine. It's totally possible to be a good, reliable, caring partner (and not "drift away") while still putting your own wellbeing first. Part of my wellbeing is a healthy relationship and my partner's happiness, so I do what I can to ensure that he's happy and our relationship is fun and healthy and that involved some compromises on my part, obviously. But within such limits, that they don't make me unhappy.

[Malaga]

People that don't put you first will drift away when the new love runs out in five years or so.

And when new love runs out in five years or so and you realise you traded the life you loved for the life you hate (other than your SO)? People can put up with a lot for love as long as there is a goal to spur you on. Once the goal is achieved and the novelty of it wears off, then your everyday life becomes crucial. There's a reason why in fairy tales, where love conquers all, "happily ever after" starts when there are no more dragons to slay. If you have to keep slaying dragons every day, you can't be happy. It's important to be able to make sacrifices but it's also important to be able to draw the line at your limits, or you risk losing it all, mostly yourself.

I don't know the details of your relationship so I don't know why him moving to where you used to live (and obviously were happy) wasn't an option. You made that choice, and I hope everything works out for you in the best way possible. But people are different, not everyone conditions their happiness on their SO. Just because people have limits that are essential part of who they are doesn't mean their love isn't good enough or that there isn't a solution. If true love indeed conquers all, then it will conquer without putting your mental health at risk.

To the OP; it sounds like your girlfriend is very disappointed about not getting that Torino job. As I understand, it's only been a few days since she took a new job and moved to another country. I understand your concern about her words, I'd feel the same, but I suggest you try not to read too much into it for the time being. It's still early days. Give her some time to adapt and maybe stop pressing the matter of closing the distance for now. She sounds like she's overwhelmed with all the job drama and moving to a whole other country she had to go through recently and it's hard to plan for the future when she doesn't feel like her feet are on the ground right now. Nurture the connection between you and plan visits and quality time together, and see if that helps her regain confidence.

[silvermoonfairy3]

I do think you should be willing to be miserable if that is what it takes to be together, otherwise you are choosing your country over your partner.

?
You're suggesting that a person should willingly choose misery in order to be together with someone?
I think if the result is going to be misery, it means you're with the wrong person.

How about if both partners would be miserable, should the couple just stay apart because they simply don't want to leave their country?

Er... yes.
If both partners would be miserable, and can't find some solution where they wouldn't be, I think they should probably break up.

[snow_girl]

Wow I'm surprised by the amount of people that think you should be happy with a partner. Doesn't y'all know that they must come first always and forever? Once you are married it turns to crap, thats why everyone makes jokes about marriage being lame and all those "the wife" jokes or makes it seem not worth marriage at all. If you are not miserable pre marriage, how can you expect post marriage to be? No more rainbows and puppy dogs! Once you meet the one, give up anything that makes you happy and dive right into the depths of love! For without the dispair your love won't fair!

[TwoThree]

?
You're suggesting that a person should willingly choose misery in order to be together with someone?
I think if the result is going to be misery, it means you're with the wrong person.



Er... yes.
If both partners would be miserable, and can't find some solution where they wouldn't be, I think they should probably break up.

You would think that would be a given, but apparently not.

[TwoThree]

Riddle me this, Hollandia.

You are from the US, your SO is from Holland and you are moving to the UK. All these countries are "first world" countries.

Say I fall deeply in love with a man from Sierra Leone, and it is absolutely impossible for him to move to my country (which is surprisingly and notoriously difficult to move to) or anywhere else where we could be together. I really really do love him, but I can't possibly move to a war-torn African country. Does that mean I just don't love him enough?

[lilspitfire]

I thought we were trying to help the OP not argue about what we would do and who loves their SO more because of what they've given up for them?

[Moon]

I thought we were trying to help the OP not argue about what we would do and who loves their SO more because of what they've given up for them?

Sometimes threads derail. When it's claimed that the reason people don't move is because they don't love enough, that is gonna derail a thread.

[lilspitfire]

Sometimes threads derail. When it's claimed that the reason people don't move is because they don't love enough, that is gonna derail a thread.

Yup! I was trying to get it back on track.