Random Relationship Derailment Thread

How to explain ERE, arranging family matters
Freedom_2018
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:10 am

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by Freedom_2018 »

From what I see:

Misogyny, misandry etc emerge from human inability to reconcile between our biological urges and instincts and our rational belief and desire that we can rise above that. It is essentially a cognitive dissonance (essentially like a malnourished vegan who is vegan for the 'right' reasons but unfortunately the cells of his body have not heard of ethics, they just want the nutrition they want irrespective of source)

We need to honor both biology and rationality for full expression as a human being and learn to self modulate between those two viewpoints. If we don't do it for ourselves, many others are happy to tell us which way to think/behave.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 4809
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by Ego »

Many of the themes talked about here on the forums are money-related so it is normal for people to be in a money-mindset while they are here. Many interactions and relationships in life like working, buying, selling, and doing favors for neighbors, are transactional. We give something and get something else.

It is tempting for those who are good with money and good at managing tranactional relationships to apply these skills to all relationships. But the good relationships, the ones that inject meaning and joy in life, are not transactional at all. They are something entirely different. A transactional mentality kills them.

This article is a bit hokey but it gives a good overview of the difference....

https://medium.com/thrive-global/how-to ... 1edfb68d89

prognastat
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by prognastat »

Believing there was/should be no transactional aspect to a romantic relationship is what lead me to staying in an unhealthy and probably slightly abusive relationship for far longer than I probably should have. It shouldn't be all there is to a romantic relationship, but completely ignoring it can lead to some very unhealthy outcomes.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by classical_Liberal »

@prognastat
There is a difference between codependancy and non zero sum game.

I don't think that is to say there aren't "transactions" in "transformational" relationships. Rather, the transactions themselves are not evaluated on individual merit, instead they are evaluated on the basis of advancing the relationship itself, which is non zero sum based.

prognastat
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by prognastat »

I mean he literally says "are not transactional at all" that would mean no aspect of it is transactional/contains transactions. That's what I was responding to. That might work if both participants are healthy individuals, not so much when one of more of the participants aren't.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6114
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Well, I would note that even strictly business partnerships are non-zero sum, so I would assume the author is suggesting higher shared purpose.

Also, you can have a healthy, transformative, or at least collaborative, relationship with an individual who is overall less functional than you, but if and only if it is a strictly limited partnership. One of the dreariest things I learned about human relationship capacity is that on average a couple can only last about 3 months after formation of large functional gap.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by classical_Liberal »

Maybe it's just a definitional or semantics problem. Replace the term transaction with interaction in transformational relationships. The goal of an interaction is to advance the relationship, without any obvious individual benefit for one or both of the parties, yet both gain from advancement of relationship as a separate entity.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by classical_Liberal »

@7WB5
Relationships with functional gaps can be the most transformative if those gaps are complimentary. Opposite attract, no?

Edit: I actually see this all the time in the elderly. One is physically impaired, the other cognitively. Together they form a symbiotic partnership that keeps them out of the old folks home.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6114
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Yeah, but doesn't it kind of irk you out sometimes when Bob and Shelly become BobnShelly?

Freedom_2018
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:10 am

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by Freedom_2018 »

I hope to be a BobnShelly someday. Honestly I don't see too many BobnShellys in society these days. I think unless naturally lucky (and some couples are), it is always a work in progress by both parties.

Here is a new slogan for baseball hats : MBSGA "Make BobnShelly Great Again" ;-)

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6114
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Freedom_2018:

lol- Good point.

Let me attempt to express myself again at higher level. One of my touchstone human lifestyle design books is "A Pattern Language-Towns.Buildings.Construction."(1977) This book is composed of many small sections, each describing an element of a larger functional system and how that element is related to other elements. This is from the small section (77)entitled "A HOUSE FOR A COUPLE.."
...again, ideally, every couple is part of a larger group household-THE FAMILY(75)-If this can not be so, try to build the house for the couple in such a way as to tie it together with some other households, to form the beginnings of a group household, or, if this fails, at least to form the beginnings of a HOUSE CLUSTER (37).

***
In a small household shared by two, the most important problem which arises is the possibility that each may have too little opportunity for solitude or privacy.

Consider these forces:
1. Of course, the couple need a shared realm, where they can function together, invite friends, be alone together. This realm needs to be made up of functions which they share.
2. But, it is also true that each partner is trying to maintain an individuality, and not be submerged in the identity of the other, or the identity of the "couple." Each partner needs space to nourish this need.
It is essential, therefore, that a small house be conceived as a place where the two people may be together but where, from time to time, either one of them may also be alone, in comfort, in dignity, and in such a way that the other does not feel left out or isolated. To this end, there must be two small places-perhaps rooms, perhaps large alcoves, perhaps a corner, screened by off by a half-wall- places which are clearly understood as private territories, where each person can keep to himself, pursue his or her own activities.
Still, the problem of balance of privacy in a couple's lives is delicate. Even with a small place of one's own, tenuously connected to the house, one partner may feel left out at various moments. While we believe that the solution proposed in this pattern helps, the problem will not be entirely settled until the couple itself is in some close, neighborly, and family-like relationship to other adults. Then, when one needs privacy, the other has possibilities for companionship at hand. This idea and its physical implications are discussed in the pattern, THE FAMILY (75).
Once the opportunity for withdrawal is satisfied, there is also a genuine opportunity for the couple to be together; and then the house can be a place where genuine intimacy, genuine connection can happen.
There is one other problem, unique to a house for a couple, that must be mentioned. In the first years of a couple's life, as they learn more about each other, and find out if indeed they have a future together, the evolution of the house plays a vital role. Improving the house, fixing it up, enlarging it, provides a frame for learning about one another: it brings out conflict, and offers the chance, like almost no other activity, for concrete resolution and growth. This suggests that a couple find a place that they can change gradually over the years, and not build or buy for themselves a "dream" home from scratch. The experience of making simple changes in the house, and tuning it to their lives, provides some grist for their own growth. Therefore, it is best to start small, with plenty of room for growth and change.
Therefore:

Conceive a house for a couple as being made up of two kinds of places- a shared couple's realm and individual private worlds. Imagine the shared realm as half-public and half-intimate; and the private worlds as entirely individual and private.


Again, treat the house as a distinct territory, in some sense owned by its users- YOUR OWN HOME(79). Lay out the common part according to the pattern COUPLE'S REALM (136), and give both persons an individual world of their own where they can be alone- A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN (141)...
In my experience and observation, it is very difficult for couples to establish this balance when the house in which they attempt to form their relationship is owned by and was previously occupied by only one partner to the couple. That is why I worry a bit about the members of this forum who are constructing very large "houses" for their individual lifestyles prior to forming primary relationships. It is very difficult to release dominance over a realm once established, and no other healthy, complete individual just wants to be "the cherry on top."

OTOH, what I obviously meant by "irked out by BobnShelly" is the vibe a couple will sometimes give off of lacking the healthy space for individuality as described above.

Jean
Posts: 1189
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by Jean »

I agree. Idealy, i would like a forest patch, where each family member would have its own hut, and there would be a common hut. It's great to be invited by your partner or inviting her.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6114
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

It is also the case that this problem gains an extra dimension, or two, in situations where mature adults who previously formed families are attempting marriage, or similarly significant relationship, again. So, for instance, in addition to the spaces suggested above, "rooms" in which relationships with children from previous relationships can be conducted must also be allotted. This is very evident at certain junctures, such as the holidays, in which I have found myself scheduling time and place to celebrate and carry forward traditions with my family of origin "the sister's party" , my own adult children "small dinner on Xmas eve", and my more or less SO. My kids, rightfully, do not necessarily want to share our traditions, or open any level of intimacy, with Mom's BF. But, unless he has other "rooms" himself to tend, Mom's BF might feel a little left out if all he gets is a plate of left-over my special recipe corned beef with apples and cabbage on March 17th.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6114
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Jean wrote:I agree. Idealy, i would like a forest patch, where each family member would have its own hut, and there would be a common hut. It's great to be invited by your partner or inviting her.
Running joke with my BF is whether or not he will sell me a small section of his acreage in which I will live in something like a hut.

Often people imagine polygyny being conducted "harem" style, but it is much more frequently the case that each female has her own household or "tent" which the husband visits. This will probably raise some hackles, but I always remember a scene from some work by John Updike in which the mid-century modern male protagonist is thinking to himself that it will be okay, or fair, to leave his wife for another woman if he gives her the house, and I kind of think that is true. Of course, my perspective might be tainted by the fact that my ex bailed on our agreement that he would pay half the mortgage until our DD16 graduated from high school. OTOH, my current BF did basically give his ex-wife the house, so she could continue to raise their son there, when he basically left her for another woman. There was no 3rd party involvement in my divorce, but my ex was highly worked up about the fact that I was going out on dinner dates with men within 3 months of our split (even though he indicated no further interest in "dating" me himself) , so maybe that negated the "fair to leave her the house" rule-of-thumb in his mind. Dunno.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 4809
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by Ego »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:42 am
OTOH, what I obviously meant by "irked out by BobnShelly" is the vibe a couple will sometimes give off of lacking the healthy space for individuality as described above.
OTOH, today most people experience angst not from a lack of healthy space but from a lack of healthy human contact. So much so that human contact is now a luxury good. People pay to be touched by a masseuse, listened to by a therapist and encouraged by a personal coach. They pay a premium for in-person banking or in-person airline check-in.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/sund ... reens.html

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6114
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Ego:

Absolutely agree. However, and this might be hard to understand from the perspective of a long-term healthy relationship, it has been my experience and that of many other thoughtful, well-intentioned people, that this sort of isolation can become much worse when you are "trapped" in an unhealthy relationship than when you are single. I had practically allowed myself to lapse into Romanian crib orphan syndrome by the time I finally left my cold, dead albatross of a marriage. I actually burst into tears when I found myself cuddling after sex with my first post-divorce lover.

My married polyamour was feeling so miserable and isolated prior to meeting me, on one occasion early in our relationship, he literally pinned me down with offer of back massage, and thereby basically forced me to listen to him talk about problems he was having at work with a colleague. Every time I have had sex with a divorced man in his 50s or 60s who hasn't gotten laid in approximately 2.5 years, it is like I can practically see them perk up like a plant that hasn't been watered in a long time. I know that it is not in alignment with best practicelong-term self-aware self-care to make this sort of behavior one of my semi-altruistic semi-retirement hobbies, but ...the need is out there, for sure.

Anyways, my days are full of providing personal service and/or engaging in personal interaction. I tie shoes for poor 5 year olds. I remind wealthy old men to take their medication before 5. I hand vegetables over garden fences. I talk to a colleague about her problematic divorce. I chuckle with my gardening property-equity partner when a bale of grape vines falls on his head. I cuddle in bed with my BF. I make my mother some dinner. etc. etc. etc. etc. So, one problem with modern society from my perspective is how do I figure out which of these interactions are going to result in needful cash or provision flow for me? A scant 60 years ago the answer to this question would have been fairly universal and obvious.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 4809
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by Ego »

@7W, Right, but how do things get so bad? How do the plants go unwatered for so long? The people I know who experience this problems have become strangers living in the same home. That happens when each person retreats to their own space as outlined in your Pattern Language quote. That was written back in the 70s. Like you, I grew up then and personal space was a REAL problem. We had five people in a small house with one bathroom. Today those problems rarely exist outside of the refugee families you teach.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6114
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Ego wrote:Right, but how do things get so bad? How do the plants go unwatered for so long? The people I know who experience this problems have become strangers living in the same home. That happens when each person retreats to their own space as outlined in your Pattern Language quote.
I do think that McMansions full of multiple rooms with multiple screens contribute to the problem. Obviously, a lot of it also has to do with the fact that we have all been progressively more conditioned to feel anxiety when out of our armored masculine-energy shells. Some blame this on feminism, but I think it's partially "follow the money" in terms of which entities benefit if almost all human activities are recorded on W-2 or 1099, and also partially how this relates to end-game marginal labor efficiency gains in our stretched and bloated system. For instance, just because regulations allow 1/13 adult to 2 year old child ratio does not make it right or anything resembling natural or healthy, and meanwhile all the space in the well-appointed homes where these children spend their evening and weekend hours is sitting empty?!? When I worked in such an environment, one of the saddest and sweetest interaction I would frequently witness was when the slightly older 4 or 5 year old siblings would join there age-peer isolated toddler siblings at nap-time and instinctively attempt to provide them with personalized maternal-type care.

Evidence that this is an overall socio-economic problem, and not just related to changing gender roles, is that it applies just as much to farming as child care. The ever-increasing drive towards increased linear production efficiency takes farmers away from meaningful engagement as stewards of their land, and makes them feel more like debt-ridden tools of the agro-industrial-complex.

OTOH, a space problem such as described in the Pattern Language very much applied to my second "marriage." My "husband" did give me an alcove in his home for my personal use, and our greatly differing sleep patterns gave us time to ourselves even though we were both mostly at home, but his drive to maintain functional dominance over most of the use of most of the rest of the house became intolerable to me. I can't live with my current BF in his apartment for the same reason. Sometimes this is straight-forwardly due to lack of joint ownership/equity, but sometimes it has more to do with personality type. For instance, in my first marriage, although we pooled assets completely, I had the more dominant personality, because my "ex" was seriously inadequately medicated depressive. In process of therapy, I literally sat on my hands and did not mow the lawn myself, because that was supposed to be his "turf"/job until the city finally sent tall weed notice. He would lay in bed all weekend, nursing a beer and watching French movies, while I took the kids to the pumpkin patch, painted the kitchen, and paid the bills. If/when I ventured into his territory to suggest that maybe we might have sex, he would look away or wake up briefly, and either say "Leave me alone." or "Okay, go rent some porn." I was out of there like 5 minutes after the moment I decided the kids were fully matured.

User avatar
Lillailler
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:09 am

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by Lillailler »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:53 am
....such as described in the Pattern Language .....
Is this the book by Christopher Alexander? His 'The Nature of Order' is one of my most valued books.

suomalainen
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Post by suomalainen »

Cats_and_tats wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:43 am
Like men who think they are the 'nice guys' who are actually creeps.
Can a woman define "creep" for me? I've tried to get a solid definition before, but the best I've been able to get from IRL women is something along the lines of "you can just tell from the way he looks at you." Which, isn't all that helpful to anyone who is not the person making the judgment.

Put aside stalkers; put aside guys who persist even after being told overtly and clearly (and verbally) "No, I'm not interested" and it seems to me from the women I've asked IRL that a "creep" is a man who shows persistent interest in a woman even after she has "put out the vibe" that she's not interested in him. Can anyone comment or clarify?

Post Reply