[crazed-driver]

I know its not a proper relationship, but I wouldn’t class it as a fling either. What would you call someone who is in love with their partner, have a closed relationship and are devoted to their partner when they are a couple. Yet after a few months an event/ocassion comes up, so they split up just for that, even though sometimes it isn’t on mutual ground and then sometime down the line, usually within a few months. They get back together and act like nothings happened?

[Ask April Masini]

It’s very hard to sustain a relationship in which regular separations are normal unless the reasons for the separations are justifiable. For instance, when a soldier is deployed, it’s understandable that he or she needs to leave his or her family. Sometimes people have careers that normally require regular travel and supporting a family is an understandable reason for separation.

I hope this helps.

Please join me on Facebook. I want to see you there, [b]crazed-driver[/b]! Here’s the link for AskApril.com on Facebook: [url][/url]. It’s free and easy. So, c’mon! Click!! 🙂

[crazed-driver]

I undertand it for careers and if you got a partner in the forces, etc. Its like me and a girl getting together and we’re solid, etc. But then i go on holiday to spain for a couple of weeks and tell my gf beforehand we’re finished as i may want to get with a girl over there. If you want to have a relationship then have one, if you just want a short term fling then have one, it ifs just physical then fair enough. But finishing with your partner just to go on holiday is just stupid as well as awkward for mates.

[Ask April Masini]

I think the problem is that when you get together with a woman, unless you tell her your ground rules — which are very different from the norm — she’s going to think you’re interested in her — until you dump her to go on a vacation where you want the freedom to hook up with other women without guilt. It sounds from your posts that you have ideas about dating which are unique, and while that’s great, you won’t have so many questions if you accept the way the rest of the world functions in dating. I hope that helps — and that I see you on AskApril.com on Facebook as much as I see you on this forum! Here’s that link: [url][/url]. 🙂

[crazed-driver]

I know about ground rules, etc and its not me that’s doing it. Its most of my mates. And it sort of getting to the point know that in order to get with someone, I have to face the fact that a mate has been with them physically and/or I may lose that mate out of it.

[Ask April Masini]

Either that — or expand your horizons and meet new people. You and your buddies recycling the same women doesn’t sound like a great situation for relationship success. 😕

[crazed-driver]

I know that is true about my mates. And its hard meeting new people, etc as I’m more introvert than an extrovert type of person, so I like me to meet someone mutually. Oh and they don’t get with the same woman, they just finish with their gf’s, have a “fling”, then go back to them. Which makes me feel like I can’t get with the one they had the fling or even with their ex gf/gf and as because most of my mates do this, it feels like there isn’t an available, nice girl out there 😕.

[Ask April Masini]

The world is full of wonderful women who are available and appropriate, but you have to be willing to do the work to get out there and meet them. Hard work often leads to success, regardless of the arena.

[crazed-driver]

Which has given me an idea. If you joined dating sites as well as social sites. Then the members on here will increase a lot and more people will be aware of you and your site.

[Ask April Masini]

Thank you for the advice.

I hope you’ll join me on Facebook. Here’s that link: [url][/url]. 🙂

[Ethan Morales]

April’s response cuts right to the core: she’s basically saying the relationship you’re describing operates outside normal social expectations. Most people view a relationship as continuous not something that pauses for convenience or certain events. So when a couple repeatedly “splits” and reunites like nothing happened, it signals either emotional avoidance or a lack of shared definition. April’s point about setting “ground rules” is key if one partner assumes devotion and the other assumes temporary freedom, the relationship runs on mismatched expectations, not mutual understanding.

What I like about her answer is that she doesn’t moralize it; she just points out the reality. Relationships like that can only survive if both people consciously agree to the pattern and very few do. Otherwise, it becomes a cycle of withdrawal and reunion that mimics commitment without truly being stable. It’s a fascinating dynamic, but in practice, it’s more about comfort and timing than actual emotional partnership.

[Tara]

You want a label? Fine, it’s a joke. What you’re describing isn’t love, devotion, or anything resembling emotional stability. It’s a dysfunctional on-again, off-again cycle dressed up as “connection” because you’re too deep in it to call it what it is. Someone who breaks up for every inconvenience is not a partner they’re an opportunist.

Someone who ditches you for events and then strolls back in like nothing happened isn’t committed they’re using you as a placeholder until something better or more convenient comes along. And someone who participates in this cycle and pretends it’s a relationship? That person is in denial.

So here’s the real term: it’s a revolving-door situationship, run by someone who treats you like an option, and tolerated by someone who’s too attached to walk away. Stop romanticizing emotional whiplash. It’s not deep it’s just chaotic.

[Author]

Posts