There was a point in time where I wanted to be my man's "everything." I wanted him to depend on me for everything he would need. I would pride myself in being able to BE that homie, lover, friend, girlfriend, counselor, roll-dog, advisor, psychologist, Bonnie to his Clyde etc etc. I would seek to be ALL of these out of my/our nurturing nature.
Nowadays, I have to reconsider that line of thinking.
Now, I consider it a turnoff to be a man's everything. No more "You're my world" "You're my everything" "You complete me." My reply: You, my friend, need to be complete within yourself first, as I will be the same.
A man (like a woman) has specific needs that CANNOT be fulfilled by one person. You need different interactions with different people on a regular basis to be socially balanced. Your bff and/or opposite sex friend will give you different energy, different perspective, bring a different light than your mate and vice versa. Neither is better than the other, but both are necessary for a social balance.
I would MUCH rather be a piece of the puzzle (that is his life) than then ENTIRE puzzle. Being the entire puzzle is definitely a turnoff because it's a sign of dependency. Dependency is, arguably, a sign of weakness. Dependency is for children, not for grown, mature men. I think, it's much better to be wanted rather than needed. Compliment rather than complete. I'd rather deal with a "complete" man rather than "half/incomplete" man still seeking 'wholeness.'
I say all that to say, being a man's "everything" is not all it's cracked up to be when you break it down to what is really being said. A complete woman complimenting a complete man: that's LOVE.
Weigh in on this one... Your thoughts are definitely insightful and appreciated.