ohkay so... i really like this guy we`ll call him kaleb. but kaleb has a girlfriend, but yet... he talks to me more than her sometimes. he tells me that he has to break up with her for the summer. but should i wait? one more thing... i think i like this other guy, call him joe. but see joe lives to far away && i`ll only get to see him on the weekends. i`m the kind of girl that, likes to spend time with her boyfriends.
before i moved i had a HUGE crush (i mean 2 yrs) on this guy, jake. & we still talk && he told me how he feels about me now that i`m away. kinda made me feel deeper for him.
my questions
1) should i wait for kaleb or date joe?
2) is it badd that i like this many guys @ one time?
3)seeing joe only on the weekends better for the relationship?
Date Joe and have fun. Kaleb is attached to a girlfriend.
IF, by summer, Kaleb does break up with his girlfriend and you are not in deep with Joe and STILL like Kaleb-- then date Kaleb.
As far as the long-distance boyfriend goes, make up your mind. Don't do this to him. If you can't be faithful to him in a long-distance relationship, then tell him and set him free. Stop leading him on, that is cruel and not morally right. Would you want a guy to do that to you? Ask yourself.
Stop being selfish and immature, and make up your mind or let ALL guys know you are NOT ABLE to committ and WANT to be free to date whoever you want when you want.
ductape_n_roses answered Saturday May 12 2007, 11:11 am: 1-You should wait for Kaleb and just keep Joe as a friend. If you're a cuddly person, long distance relationships are not going to work. But still. It's your decision to make.
2-No it's not. I don't think it is anyway. I usually have one or two guys that I'm completely head over heels for a long, long time [we're talking years]. And in between, I get short term crushes.
3-Well, personally, I don't think it is. If you're the kind of person that needs the boyfriend to hug and hold, being able to see him only on the weekends is a not so good thing. [ ductape_n_roses's advice column | Ask ductape_n_roses A Question ]
orphans answered Saturday May 12 2007, 12:44 am: Well, Jake really likes you, it seems like. If you feel deep about him and have had a crush on him for 2 years, I really think you should go with him... BUT you never said how far away you live from him. So, if he lives close to you, I think you should go for him. But, Joe. If you can't have Jake, then my 2nd vote is Joe. It's alright that you won't get to spend much time with him, because when you DO get to spend time with him, it will be more special and meaningful, you know? Where as, if ya'll were ALWAYS together then it wouldn't be very special. Plus, it would leave more phone time and that's just awesome. Kaleb... I say forget him. If he's making you wait on him, that's not right. If he's talking to you more than his girlfriend, 1] he's a studly womanizer 2] if you and him DO date, then he'll probably talk to other girls, like he talks to you now.
SO basically. I say JAKE. but you don't seem to like him, because you don't really talk about him. So 2nd- JOE. But not really Kaleb.
Your Questions
1) Don't wait for Kaleb, unless you truly like him. But he's doesn't seem like a good boyfriend. If he liked you and cared about you, he would break up with his girlfriend for you.
2) NO WAY, it's not bad to like this many guys. I like 5 guys right now, and with your "Kaleb" I'm having the SAME EXACT PROBLEM, weird huh? lol
3) Yes, it's WAY WAY WAY better. I think it will make ya'll relationship really work out. [ orphans's advice column | Ask orphans A Question ]
Attention: NOTHING on this site may be reproduced in any fashion whatsoever without explicit consent (in writing) of the owner of said material, unless otherwise stated on the page where the content originated. Search engines are free to index and cache our content. Users who post their account names or personal information in their questions have no expectation of privacy beyond that point for anything they disclose. Questions are otherwise considered anonymous to the general public.