...the most emotionally unavailable? I wouldn't go that far. I'm pretty sure I am the most emotionally unavailable person you can encounter. I openly admit I have ADD when it comes to guys. Catching my attention is one thing, keeping my attention seems to be where most fail. I've been asked many times what it is I look for in a guy and I never know how to answer. I'm attracted to sarcasm it seems, as well as intelligence, humor, and of course several physical attributes. Something cute and shinny will catch my attention, but it wont keep it for long. (Armondo was very cute and very shinny but I'm pretty sure he's got the IQ of an eggplant. He lasted about 3 days)
Naxos also wrote:
"I hate to shatter egos and break hearts, but you've watched too many old movies and read one too many romance novels. 95% of the time, what you see is what you get, even if you wont let your eyes see what you need to see."
Art imitates life, there had to be romance for it to be written about. It may have combusted at some point, but it was there and it could happen. With that being said, all of the greatest romances have tragic painful endings. The best example of this would be my favorite novel Wuthering Heights.
Real romance, real attraction will always self destruct; it's just too much to contain. It devourers all it touches like a flame. Hence my outlook that you need to judge the happiness you'll have verse the pain you will have to recover from.
Love is a fire, you can sit around the edges and take the chill off your bones or dive into the center and burn in the flames. The funny thing about fire is it doesn't stay very hot unless it's devouring something. So, either way.. you're basically fucked.
This leaves the decision:
Do you sit on the edge and be comfortable watching it fade, or dive in and burn?
Is it better to be left cold when the fire burns out or with 3rd degree burns?