?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Some thoughts on choosing relationships

One of my sweeties has a policy never to get involved with someone who has never had his heart broken. She believes quite strongly that there are certain things about yourself that you can only learn when your heart is broken, and that having your heart broken is the only way to discover whether or not you're the sort of person who can pick himself up, put himself back together, and move on with courage and joy, or if you're the sort of person who is destroyed by it.

I think there's some value to that notion, and I've written about it in my journal before, though I don't use it as a rule.

A few years back, I had a really painful breakup with a woman I fell very hard for and then, after investing a great deal in the relationship, discovered was a very poor partner for me. That relationship really brought home for me a lesson that I knew intellectually but didn't know emotionally, which is this:

It is possible to deeply, sincerely love someone and still not be a good partner for that person.

That relationship also caused some nontrivial damage to one of my other relationships, and ended up changing the course of my life in ways that I still feel. I can't say that if I had to do it over, I would never have gotten involved with that person at all, though I can say that I would have made different choices about what to do with that connection. But I digress.

There's a socially sanctioned myth that says that love conquers all. It's a deeply and profoundly silly thing to believe; love is a feeling, and a feeling can no more solve problems than it can refinish the sofa or put a new circuit breaker box in the attic. A feeling can impel action, can influence the way you make choices, but it can't, of and by itself, do anything on its own. And making a relationship work requires more than just a feeling. It requires that the people involved make choices that are compatible and work toward a common end--which is extraordinarily difficult to do when those people have different goals, different priorities, different expectations, or even different internal templates about what they want their lives to look like. No matter what they feel.

And the feeling of love isn't the only thing that influences our decisions. Other feelings, like fear or anxiety or anger, have a vote, too, and it's not always the feeling of love that casts the deciding vote--even when that love is genuine.




The lesson that I can really, deeply love someone and we can still not be good partners for each other was probably the most expensive relationship lesson I've ever learned, and it's completely rearranged my approach to choosing partners.

The approach I used to use, and I suspect the approach that many people use, was to keep a sort of internal list of "dealbreakers" that I'd refer to whenever I met someone who seemed interesting to me and who seemed interested in me. I'd kind of run down the list--Is she monogamous? Nope. Is she giving me the psycho vibe? Nope. Does she hold conservative religious ideas? Nope. All the way down the list, and if I didn't hit a dealbreaker the answer would be "Cool! We should totally start dating!"

That isn't the way I work any more. The dealbreaker approach "fails closed;" it assumes that if no dealbreakers are hit, then we should start a relationship, so if something later comes up that I didn't know was a problem...well, I find out about it after I've already started to invest in a relationship with this person.

The approach I use now isn't to keep a list of dealbreakers. Oh, there are some, to be sure; I'm not likely to date someone with a history of violence against her past partners, for example. But instead of keeping a list of dealbreakers these days, I keep a list of things that I actively look for--things that light me up in another person.

If I meet someone who seems interesting, and seems interested in me, I am more likely to ask the question "Does this person really light me up inside and bring out joy in me?" than "Does this person have some disagreeable trait that I don't like?" That approach tends to "fail open"--the default is *not* to start a relationship unless there's something very special about the person, rather than to start a relationship unless there's something disagreeable about her.

That approach takes care of a lot of "dealbreakers" on its own, because a person who has the qualities that really shine isn't likely to have the qualities that would be dealbreakers for me. For instance, a person who has demonstrated to me that she favors choices that demonstrate courage and integrity isn't likely to be a liar.

It's more than just taking the dealbreakers and flipping them on their heads, though. There are a lot of qualities on my "must have" list that wouldn't have been reflected on my "dealbreaker" list.

So all of this is kind of a longwinded way to get to the qualities that DO light me up about someone. The things that really attract me to a person, without which I'm unlikely to want to start a relationship with her, include things like:

- Has she done something that shows me she is likely, when faced with a difficult decision, to choose the path of greatest courage?

- Has she done something that shows me that, when faced by a personal fear or insecurity, she is dedicated to dealing with it with grace, and to invest in the effort it takes to confront, understand, and seek to grow beyond it?

- Does she show the traits of intellectual curiosity, intellectual rigor, and intellectual growth?

- Has she dealt with past relationships, including relationships that have failed, with dignity and compassion?

- Is she a joyful person? Does she value personal happiness? Does she make me feel joy?

- Does she seem to be a person who has a continuing commitment to understanding herself?

- Does she seem to be a person who values self-determinism?

- Does she approach the things that light her up, whatever those things may be, with energy and enthusiasm? Does she engage the world and the parts of it that make her happy?

- Does she seem to demonstrate personal integrity?

- Is she open, honest, enthusiastic, and exploratory about sex?

- Does she communicate openly, even when it's uncomfortable to do so?


There are probably more; the things that attract me to a person are in some ways a lot more nebulous than my old list of dealbreakers used to be.

In some ways, the approach I use now is an approach that relies on a model of relationship that's based on abundance, not on starvation. A person who holds a starvation model of relationship, in which relationships seem to be rare and difficult to find, is not likely going to want to use an approach that fails open, on the fear that if he doesn't take a relationship opportunity that presents itself, who knows when another person might express interest? If relationships seem rare, then why not jump at an opportunity if there seem to be no dealbreakers standing in the way?

The approach of seeking positive reasons to start a relationship, rather than looking for reasons NOT to start a relationship, means that I say "no" to opportunities that come by more often than I say "yes." I have found that, for whatever reason, I tend to have a lot of opportunity for relationship, so there may be something to the notion that I have adopted this model of relationship because I can afford it.

But I do believe that holding an abundance model of relationship tends to make it true. I think that people who hold a starvation model of relationship often seem to be always searching for a partner, and that can really be off-putting; whereas in an abundance model, if you simply live your life with enthusiasm and joy and instead of seeking partners you seek to develop in yourself the qualities that you desire in a partner, then other people will tend to be drawn to you and relationships will be abundant.


Comments

( 48 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
(Deleted comment)
ashbet
Apr. 13th, 2010 12:48 am (UTC)
Agreed, agreed, agreed!!!

-- A <3
onmyownterms
Apr. 13th, 2010 01:24 am (UTC)
Thank you...
I won't explain why, but that fact that you wrote this at this particular moment in time means a great deal to me.
fallingupthesky
Apr. 13th, 2010 01:29 am (UTC)
Love conquers all in only one specific circumstance: removing or getting around the obstacles which keep people apart when both are strongly in love with each other. It doesn't work to keep them together in the long run if they're incompatible, nor does it transform a one-sided attraction into a two-sided one (much to the dismay of stalkers everywhere).

Even then it's only true in the case that the obstacles are actually surmountable; for example, love does not conquer death, unless one considers suicide-so-we-can-meet-again-in-the-afterlife to be romantic.
donnaidh_sidhe
Apr. 13th, 2010 08:14 am (UTC)
(I'm going to preface this by saying it's not you I'm irritated at, just the pop culture in general.)

I'm repeatedly irritated by people's idea that "Love conquers all" means necessarily "by the power of love, we who are in love will overcome all obstacles to be together." Even if that's become a valid interpretation through ubiquity (much like "begging the question" has started becoming accepted to mean "raising the question" when the original meaning was a particular kind of logical fallacy), there is another meaning: love conquers everyone -- everyone (in theory) is vulnerable to the wobbliness that being in love, or loving, tends to cause in people.

The line from Virgil is Omnia vincit amor et nos cedamus amori, and the second part translates to "let us yield to love" -- which isn't the sort of thing that one would imagine an obstacle to lovers saying! Rather, it implies more a willing surrender to the often-overwhelming force that love can be.

Anyhow...lapsed English major rant over.
(no subject) - tacky_tramp - Apr. 13th, 2010 08:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fallingupthesky - Apr. 14th, 2010 12:49 am (UTC) - Expand
whitenightsmoon
Apr. 13th, 2010 01:33 am (UTC)
I was thinking about this today.

I also tend to be attracted to people who have suffered in some way. To me, their eyes seem to carry more depth and understanding.

As for the second part, I do think one can have a good, reasonable sort of internal list of dealbreakers (for example, no anti gay, religious lunatics, criminals, etc) but after noticing that the deal breaking elements don't apply to the person in question, one doesn't necessarily think "great, let's date!". And it's for the same reason you mentioned. It's because a relationship between two people involves much more than a list.

So, if we have two people, A and B: A likes B and thinks B might like him back. A notices B has the qualities he is attracted by and doesn't have traits he is turned off by. At the same time, A feels greatly attracted to B and for A, all this involves pretty much his *own* feelings and thoughts, not *those of B*. Then, if A is an intelligent person and doesn't feel entitled to B, A will know that, in order to have a relationship, B must feel attracted too. And if they're both attracted to eachother, that still doesn't mean they are good for eachother as partners. And even if they notice that chemistry exists and they are good for eachother, they still have to *want* and *decide* to be together. And I think focusing only on the must haves (which, in a way is also a list) can lead to the same outcome of "great, let's date". Many people have both must haves and dealbreakers. For example, no matter how many must haves on my "list" someone shows, if they really want kids, getting in a relationship with that person would mean setting us up for future suffering. So I don't do that, because we want essentially different things and because I don't start a relationship thinking I'll change later what really doesn't fit me about them.

Also, I believe in the importance of partner selection. In fact, I think most relationships end because of poor partner selection, so it's good knowing yourself and knowing what you need, at the same time keeping yourself open and optimistic, centered on self growth.

I think it's a fine balance, but basic point is, I see no reason why at the end of running down a list of dealbreakers or must haves one should say "dating time", haha. That is only opening a door to further talk and so on. Unless one feels a bit entitled to be with someone just because to *him* it seems they fit. But it takes *two* to decide this.
sxyvixen
Apr. 13th, 2010 01:36 am (UTC)
Thank you for writing this. I've felt this way for a long time, and have a couple of people in my life that I will forever love dearly, but are just not good partners.
wilson_lizard
Apr. 13th, 2010 01:42 am (UTC)
Great list! I would add "similar sense of humor".. but that's me.. :)

My favorite piece of advice from my Nana was "When a relationship ends, make a list of all the things you liked, and disliked about that person. When you looking for your next bf, try to find one that has a lot of the qualities you liked, and not so much of the ones you didn't. "

My Nana and Popo are still married, and still hold hands and take long walks together. I wouldn't be surprised if they still have sex. They are in their late 80's. :)
lovewithoutfear
Apr. 13th, 2010 03:07 am (UTC)
Aw, that is sweet! My parents are 79 and do such things. I love that about them.
(no subject) - quaryn_dk - Apr. 13th, 2010 08:42 am (UTC) - Expand
badrahessa
Apr. 13th, 2010 02:21 am (UTC)
The reasons to thank you for this post are too numerous to expound on .....
sweh
Apr. 13th, 2010 02:30 am (UTC)
I think I've been indoctrinated too much into corporate think. My immediate thought was to map your approaches into Belbin's "team inventory" roles.

What you call the "dealbreaker" approach maps quite well into Belbin's "monitor evaluator" role. As the wikipedia page says:
However, they can become very critical, damping enthusiasm for anything without logical grounds, and they have a hard time inspiring themselves or others to be passionate about their work.

Why, yes, when I self-evaluated that was my role :-)

I'm not quite sure how the other approach maps; maybe a "plant" or "resource investigator".

I didn't say it was a perfect match to Belbin, merely that I saw some parallels :-)
rain_herself
Apr. 13th, 2010 02:45 am (UTC)
I heartily agree with the abundance vs. starvation thing, though of course not with everything, because that would be wrong! :)

I have a question, though. What is self-determinism?
tacit
Apr. 13th, 2010 02:53 am (UTC)
The notion that we choose our own path, without being forced into roles by tradition, social convention, or the expectations of others.
(no subject) - rain_herself - Apr. 13th, 2010 03:02 am (UTC) - Expand
lovewithoutfear
Apr. 13th, 2010 03:08 am (UTC)
I also thank you for this; I too have gone from starvation to abundance mode, and gotten more selective, and more positive in my selectivity, about new relationships.
mseuphrates
Apr. 13th, 2010 03:24 am (UTC)
That's...
Wow.
You just took my "Just because you love someone doesn't mean you should *live with* them," to a whole new level. Thank you - I really like the positive spin there. :) Boosting the signal if you don't mind.
tacit
Apr. 13th, 2010 04:52 am (UTC)
Thanks! Don't mind at all.
anais_pf
Apr. 13th, 2010 03:44 am (UTC)
This is exactly what I needed to reinforce my thinking at this moment. Thank you.
tedeisenstein
Apr. 13th, 2010 03:53 am (UTC)
It took me a while to remember what this reminded me of, but I finally did.

I used to watch gymnastics. There were often contestants who were technically proficient, did all the moves and did them without flaw, had enough grace and strength and what-all - but they didn't often get perfect scores. They came close, but no cigar.

It was the ones who had all of that, plus a certain amount of flair, élan, a song in their hearts and a smile on their faces, that always won. Perfection, in other words, plus extra ooomph, except that that little extra bit was never classifiable or describable: you just knew (s)he had it by not only what was done but also by how.

There are a few people who come up to my standards, but, y'know, there's no spark there. These are the good friends. The ones with spark turn into (potential) lovers.
tripartite
Apr. 13th, 2010 06:38 am (UTC)
omg YOU'RE Tacit? ;)
Thank you. Frequently you are able to put into words something that I think but have difficulty expressing verbally. Usually you do it in such a way that I have to go away and think about it.
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
( 48 comments — Leave a comment )