You get back exactly as much as you require
I'd like to know why it is that people seem so determined to make minimal investment in a relationship a fucking virtue. Somehow, it has permeated the consciousness of society like some infernal strain of mildew that the key to long lasting and profound relationships is to be entirely passive.
Forgive me if I tell you I have no desire to date a boston fern no matter how fetching it may look in a miniskirt.
Granted, both people need to accept the other for who they are. That means understanding all their faults as well as strengths and all the quirks in between. The point of this is that neither side is entertaining illusions or agendas about the other person. It does not bloody mean that as soon as you start to fall for someone you start to pick and choose the aspects of you that need to be trimmed or ignored to match them! If you think you have to change yourself to be with someone, they aren't for you. It's as simple as that.
Everyone has a list of specific needs that must be met in their relationships along with a larger list of preferences. The differences here should be completely fucking obvious. A need is non-negotiable, it simply has to be present for the person holding that need to be happy and healthy in the relationship. A preference on the other hand has some latitude. As long as most of the preferences are addressed, things are good. There can be some compromise. Unfortunately, time and again I see people not only attempting to divorce themselves from all needs, but also rationalizing furiously to make an inconvenient and unmet need into a preference.
It doesn't work that way. I don't care how bloody inconvenient it might be to require fresh drinking water in the middle of a desert, without it you die. There is no argument. Relationship needs are just as sharp a pass/fail requirement. It may not cause a loss of biological function, but it will cause a loss of emotional function. It's a binary solution set. Either ALL needs are met in someone's life, or they sharply decline. And at least on a subconscious level people understand this. Consequently, they will attempt to make it something else, something that can be molded into something less scary.
I've said before what I think about the brainless, gibbering terror that seems to possess people that they might be "too needy." It's a pernicious habit to sabotage your own relationships by sacrificing yourself. Compromise yourself once and it's easier to do the next until there's nothing left of you to betray.
OK, fine. But Lanius, what if it's just something silly like they don't talk to me enough about emotional things? What if I get these irrational ideas that they aren't as invested in the relationship as I am because they don't express themselves like I want?
Why the frothy hell are you attempting to marginalize the importance of your concerns right off the bat? Why are you reflexively making the assumption that you're being irrational? If it is merely a starting point to move logically from your own circle of control and influence outward, that's one thing. If it's because you're formulating a method to allow you to dismiss your emotions as ground-less, that's extremely harmful.
Levels of communication can very well be a need. It does not make you a bad person. It does not make you deficient as a friend/lover/human being. What it does mean is that you cannot remain indefinitely in a relationship where your partner cannot/will not articulate at the intimate emotional level you require to function. It doesn't make them a bad person if meeting that need is outside of their abilities. It just means they are unsuitable to be in a relationship with you regardless of how fantastic they are otherwise. It's comparable to suffering from malnutrition. Sooner or later, it's going to put too much strain on your system and you'll collapse.
In addition, if the other person routinely gives you signs that you interpret as lack of investment on an equal to greater level than your own, there actually is a problem. Either you discover the ways they are demonstrating their commitment that you were missing before and adapt to those new cues or you make a decision about whether it's fair to yourself to remain in an unequal relationship. They may not be capable of giving themselves as deeply as you have, but that's just too bad. If you require that balance, you require that balance. If their best is not enough, wishing is never going to make it enough. Relationships need more than love and stubbornness, the dysfunctions cannot clash.
Forgive me if I tell you I have no desire to date a boston fern no matter how fetching it may look in a miniskirt.
Granted, both people need to accept the other for who they are. That means understanding all their faults as well as strengths and all the quirks in between. The point of this is that neither side is entertaining illusions or agendas about the other person. It does not bloody mean that as soon as you start to fall for someone you start to pick and choose the aspects of you that need to be trimmed or ignored to match them! If you think you have to change yourself to be with someone, they aren't for you. It's as simple as that.
Everyone has a list of specific needs that must be met in their relationships along with a larger list of preferences. The differences here should be completely fucking obvious. A need is non-negotiable, it simply has to be present for the person holding that need to be happy and healthy in the relationship. A preference on the other hand has some latitude. As long as most of the preferences are addressed, things are good. There can be some compromise. Unfortunately, time and again I see people not only attempting to divorce themselves from all needs, but also rationalizing furiously to make an inconvenient and unmet need into a preference.
It doesn't work that way. I don't care how bloody inconvenient it might be to require fresh drinking water in the middle of a desert, without it you die. There is no argument. Relationship needs are just as sharp a pass/fail requirement. It may not cause a loss of biological function, but it will cause a loss of emotional function. It's a binary solution set. Either ALL needs are met in someone's life, or they sharply decline. And at least on a subconscious level people understand this. Consequently, they will attempt to make it something else, something that can be molded into something less scary.
I've said before what I think about the brainless, gibbering terror that seems to possess people that they might be "too needy." It's a pernicious habit to sabotage your own relationships by sacrificing yourself. Compromise yourself once and it's easier to do the next until there's nothing left of you to betray.
OK, fine. But Lanius, what if it's just something silly like they don't talk to me enough about emotional things? What if I get these irrational ideas that they aren't as invested in the relationship as I am because they don't express themselves like I want?
Why the frothy hell are you attempting to marginalize the importance of your concerns right off the bat? Why are you reflexively making the assumption that you're being irrational? If it is merely a starting point to move logically from your own circle of control and influence outward, that's one thing. If it's because you're formulating a method to allow you to dismiss your emotions as ground-less, that's extremely harmful.
Levels of communication can very well be a need. It does not make you a bad person. It does not make you deficient as a friend/lover/human being. What it does mean is that you cannot remain indefinitely in a relationship where your partner cannot/will not articulate at the intimate emotional level you require to function. It doesn't make them a bad person if meeting that need is outside of their abilities. It just means they are unsuitable to be in a relationship with you regardless of how fantastic they are otherwise. It's comparable to suffering from malnutrition. Sooner or later, it's going to put too much strain on your system and you'll collapse.
In addition, if the other person routinely gives you signs that you interpret as lack of investment on an equal to greater level than your own, there actually is a problem. Either you discover the ways they are demonstrating their commitment that you were missing before and adapt to those new cues or you make a decision about whether it's fair to yourself to remain in an unequal relationship. They may not be capable of giving themselves as deeply as you have, but that's just too bad. If you require that balance, you require that balance. If their best is not enough, wishing is never going to make it enough. Relationships need more than love and stubbornness, the dysfunctions cannot clash.
posted by Lanius at 8:21 PM
3 Comments:
Well fuck.
Chris - That does not sound like this post has sparked happy thoughts for you.
I could have said that. I have said parts of it. It's why I have an ex-hubby instead of a hubby: conflicting needs, possibly conflicting dysfunctions.
I'll go a step farther than you did: such conflicts can render a relationship emotionally abusive. That doesn't necessarily make either partner an abuser, it just means the situation is, effectively, abusive for one or both. (Or more, if we want to include polyamory, but let's keep it simple.)
IIRC, I originally wandered over because you'd said something interesting somewhere else (either Figleaf's or ErosBlog, I think). Now I'm very glad I've been checking your blog at intervals.
Sunflower
Post a Comment
<< Home