End re­la­tion­ship be­fore mak­ing long-dis­tance move

Lodi News-Sentinel - - LOCAL / NATION - AN­NIE LANE "Ask Me Any­thing: A Year of Ad­vice From Dear An­nie" is out now! An­nie Lane’s de­but book — fea­tur­ing fa­vorite col­umns on love, friend­ship, fam­ily and eti­quette — is avail­able as a pa­per­back and e-book. Visit http://www.cre­ator­spub­lish­ing.com for

Dear An­nie: I will be mov­ing soon

— sev­eral states away — and I’m torn about the state of my re­la­tion­ship. I’ve been with my sig­nif­i­cant other for five years. That’s not some­thing I can eas­ily let go of. But we have been grow­ing apart for some time now, and we’ve dis­cussed that we both feel we’ll break up even­tu­ally.

Our com­mu­ni­ca­tion is sec­ond to none. He’s game to make the move with me, but I worry that it wouldn’t be good for him — or for me — in the long run, con­sid­er­ing we agree we don’t want to stay to­gether all that much longer.

Of course, he could move with me and find self-growth op­por­tu­ni­ties in our new place of res­i­dence. That part can happen in­de­pen­dent of me, and our cur­rent re­la­tion­ship, should it come to an end.

But I feel guilty let­ting him make that jump when it may be wiser in the long run for us to go our sep­a­rate ways. This we’ve talked about, too. Like I said, awe­some com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Any wis­dom on how we should han­dle this? — Torn Traveler

Dear Torn Traveler: Break­ing up with a part­ner is never easy, espe­cially one you have been with for five years and have awe­some com­mu­ni­ca­tion with.

If you both have agreed that you don’t plan to stay to­gether much longer, then why do you want him to move with you? Of course, it’s a free coun­try, and if he wants to fol­low you, that’s his choice. But you would be wise not to en­cour­age or dis­cour­age him either way.

If you think he wants to fol­low you be­cause he wants a longer-term re­la­tion­ship, and you want to end it, then you must have a clear and di­rect con­ver­sa­tion with him about the fact that your fu­ture plans do not in­clude his in­volve­ment in your life. That would be hon­est and "awe­some" com­mu­ni­ca­tion.

Dear An­nie: This is about your ob­jec­tion to those times when the bride and groom push wed­ding cake into each other’s faces. It seems to me that the writer who ob­jects to this, and your re­ply in sup­port of him, are rather self­ish.

The bride and groom have been through weeks of plan­ning, a long cer­e­mony, the proper din­ner, toasts, pho­tos and wed­ding lines, all to make a pre­sen­ta­tion to the state, their fam­i­lies, their friends and the church, that they are com­mit­ted.

Af­ter weeks of stress to please oth­ers, it is fine for the bride and groom to re­lax and let their hair down. A con­sen­sual face paint­ing with cake is the cou­ple be­ing them­selves, hav­ing fun, and show­ing the crowd a playful side. This playful side is a bet­ter demon­stra­tion of love than a stodgy cer­e­mony. No dam­age done.

The writer seems more con­cerned about ap­pear­ances than sub­stance, which misses the whole point of a com­mit­ted lov­ing re­la­tion­ship; for bet­ter or worse, for richer or poorer, in sick­ness and in health, in happy and in sad, in hard work and in play. Let’s not omit the play! — Playful

Dear Playful: I’m print­ing your let­ter be­cause I ap­pre­ci­ate your re­minder about the im­por­tance of sub­stance, rather than ap­pear­ances, in re­la­tion­ships.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.