![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayThis originates from a week-old discussion elsewhere (see here), but given its length and belatedness, I'm putting it in my own journal...
(Italics are quotes from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hopeforyou)
What criteria would you say are needed to stay in a relationship? What
criteria would you say are red and yellow flags that say it's time to
end or change the nature of a relationship (e.g. lovers to friends)?
To stay in a relationship.... hmm, I'd start by going back to what drove the creation and maintenance of that relationship. In my observation, most longer-term relationships are anchored by underlying friendship. Friendship may precede the addition of romantic and sexual aspects, or it may follow as two hot-for-each-other people begin to know each other (in the "non-biblical" sense :-), or something in-between, but eventually it seems to exist or else the relationship withers over the long term. This multiple-layer connection is akin to what I thinkclairaide refers to by "deep love" or "family of my heart." So my first and primary criterion for staying in a relationship over a long term would be the presence of a close friendship. It isn't sufficient by itself, but IMO is necessary.
So people who are sexual/romantic partners but discover that they aren't good friends... they like playing, but are largely indifferent to the other aspects of the other person(s), and spending ordinary time together is not enjoyable... that would be a large red flag to me. What happens in that case once the NRE wears off? Or the relationship becomes inconvenient?
If there is a close friendship, then I'd examine why there were also romantic and/or sexual aspects to begin with. Was it an expression of underlying love and closeness? Or a series of playful romps? Simple chemistry? Was there excitement from shared activities or interests that added to whatever physical spark existed? This leads to an underlying issue of expectations , both conscious and unconscious... if a relationship was expected to be an intense-but-short-term fling, say, it might be awkward it it persists longer as more-than-friendship (for both or all parties...).
In another example, there could be an unspoken hope by one or both persons that playful times with an "um-friend" might evolve into a more emotionally-connected relationship. Are someone's spoken or unspoken expectations not being fulfilled? Sometimes this surfaces as angst about the "direction of the relationship." Consistent, or at least openly discussed and tolerable, romantic/sexual expectations are another criterion IMO. That said, I think it is OK for some degree of unrequited-ness to exist, as long as all parties know about and acknowledge it and are reasonably comfortable. And expectations evolve, too, so periodic check-in would be a Good Idea. Lots of yellow flags would pop up around manifestations of this criterion...
And then there are intimacy aspects, certainly. If any person doesn't want to be sexual or romantic anymore, then certainly that's a red flag. More difficult to recognize or interpret would be flagging (so to speak) signs of interest... no little surprises or gestures for one's partner, anymore.... the stereotyped married couple who made love four times per week before they married, then ten years later manage it once a month... lack of interest in scheduling alone-time together, or often being trumped by outside commitments or other relationships. These would be more yellow or red flags. Physical or emotional changes can be motivations for the above.... a partner becomes infected with a non-curable STD, or develops a chronic physical or mental illness or addiction, or simply modifies their body or psyche in ways that make them less attractive to one or more of their existing partners.
How do I know this (specific) person is one I want to be with in
a long-term relationship? Hmmm...Lessee...thinking: Person A has all
these positive qualities. Person B has those qualities, too. But being
around Person A just feels right, for lack of a better term --
and I have to go with my intuition, all other items being equal.
There's a fascinating book that builds a theory about how humans emotionally connect with each other, called "A General Theory of Love", by Lewis et al. [NY Times book review] Its general gist is that humans trade emotional information through touch, inflection, body and spoken language... and we all process it as nodes in a loosely-defined, dynamic network. And the nodes (us) are affected by the emotional inputs that we get from those nearest and dearest (self-evident...), with our own emotional states changing to reflect new inputs. People that we choose to incorporate into our lives *change us* to some extent, such that we may think, act, or behave somewhat differently when we are around different groups, friends or loved-ones. Like neural-nets that are suddenly given new training sets. The implication of this is that people can and do choose partners and friends that "just feel right" because they induce a desired emotional state in that person. Also that we can re-make ourselves to some extent by through close associating with individuals having radically different emotional responses than our previous set of friends and loves.
So I would posit that what you're describing is that Person A and B have similar personal qualities, but A's emotional processing brings out emotional states in oneself that simply feel better, or more functional, than is usually the case around Person B.
In poly, you can embrace the power of "AND". So in theory, you don't
_have to_ write either A or B out of your life. You don't have to make a
choice between them. But in terms of individual growth and personal
hopes (say using your Western classical goals) -- if you don't mesh well
with, say, Person B on one or more of those items, even if you get along
just fine -- there is potential you will spend less time with B and
devote your energy to Person A.
True, one doesn't have to automatically choose to exclude one of them. But if Person A's emotional inputs feel better or make you more functional than B's, there will probably be a Pavlovian-rewards tendency to spend more time with A. But... the more interesting case is if one really enjoys time spent with A under some set of circumstances, but enjoys B more under some (much different?) set of circumstances. I.e., "when I'm in this persona, A is strong and reassuring and I feel loved, while B seems flaky and unreliable, but when I'm [in different persona] A seems dull and static while B is energetic and I feel more creative around zir." Self-modification through one's daily choice of companions... what a concept ;-).
This line starts to become dangerously close to giving a neurobiologically-rational basis for polyamory as more Highly Evolved in humans, so I'm going to let it drop here :-). It also brings up fascinating implications for group and community dynamics. But I'd highly recommend the book in any case...
(Italics are quotes from
hopeforyou)What criteria would you say are needed to stay in a relationship? What
criteria would you say are red and yellow flags that say it's time to
end or change the nature of a relationship (e.g. lovers to friends)?
To stay in a relationship.... hmm, I'd start by going back to what drove the creation and maintenance of that relationship. In my observation, most longer-term relationships are anchored by underlying friendship. Friendship may precede the addition of romantic and sexual aspects, or it may follow as two hot-for-each-other people begin to know each other (in the "non-biblical" sense :-), or something in-between, but eventually it seems to exist or else the relationship withers over the long term. This multiple-layer connection is akin to what I think
clairaide refers to by "deep love" or "family of my heart." So my first and primary criterion for staying in a relationship over a long term would be the presence of a close friendship. It isn't sufficient by itself, but IMO is necessary.So people who are sexual/romantic partners but discover that they aren't good friends... they like playing, but are largely indifferent to the other aspects of the other person(s), and spending ordinary time together is not enjoyable... that would be a large red flag to me. What happens in that case once the NRE wears off? Or the relationship becomes inconvenient?
If there is a close friendship, then I'd examine why there were also romantic and/or sexual aspects to begin with. Was it an expression of underlying love and closeness? Or a series of playful romps? Simple chemistry? Was there excitement from shared activities or interests that added to whatever physical spark existed? This leads to an underlying issue of expectations , both conscious and unconscious... if a relationship was expected to be an intense-but-short-term fling, say, it might be awkward it it persists longer as more-than-friendship (for both or all parties...).
In another example, there could be an unspoken hope by one or both persons that playful times with an "um-friend" might evolve into a more emotionally-connected relationship. Are someone's spoken or unspoken expectations not being fulfilled? Sometimes this surfaces as angst about the "direction of the relationship." Consistent, or at least openly discussed and tolerable, romantic/sexual expectations are another criterion IMO. That said, I think it is OK for some degree of unrequited-ness to exist, as long as all parties know about and acknowledge it and are reasonably comfortable. And expectations evolve, too, so periodic check-in would be a Good Idea. Lots of yellow flags would pop up around manifestations of this criterion...
And then there are intimacy aspects, certainly. If any person doesn't want to be sexual or romantic anymore, then certainly that's a red flag. More difficult to recognize or interpret would be flagging (so to speak) signs of interest... no little surprises or gestures for one's partner, anymore.... the stereotyped married couple who made love four times per week before they married, then ten years later manage it once a month... lack of interest in scheduling alone-time together, or often being trumped by outside commitments or other relationships. These would be more yellow or red flags. Physical or emotional changes can be motivations for the above.... a partner becomes infected with a non-curable STD, or develops a chronic physical or mental illness or addiction, or simply modifies their body or psyche in ways that make them less attractive to one or more of their existing partners.
How do I know this (specific) person is one I want to be with in
a long-term relationship? Hmmm...Lessee...thinking: Person A has all
these positive qualities. Person B has those qualities, too. But being
around Person A just feels right, for lack of a better term --
and I have to go with my intuition, all other items being equal.
There's a fascinating book that builds a theory about how humans emotionally connect with each other, called "A General Theory of Love", by Lewis et al. [NY Times book review] Its general gist is that humans trade emotional information through touch, inflection, body and spoken language... and we all process it as nodes in a loosely-defined, dynamic network. And the nodes (us) are affected by the emotional inputs that we get from those nearest and dearest (self-evident...), with our own emotional states changing to reflect new inputs. People that we choose to incorporate into our lives *change us* to some extent, such that we may think, act, or behave somewhat differently when we are around different groups, friends or loved-ones. Like neural-nets that are suddenly given new training sets. The implication of this is that people can and do choose partners and friends that "just feel right" because they induce a desired emotional state in that person. Also that we can re-make ourselves to some extent by through close associating with individuals having radically different emotional responses than our previous set of friends and loves.
So I would posit that what you're describing is that Person A and B have similar personal qualities, but A's emotional processing brings out emotional states in oneself that simply feel better, or more functional, than is usually the case around Person B.
In poly, you can embrace the power of "AND". So in theory, you don't
_have to_ write either A or B out of your life. You don't have to make a
choice between them. But in terms of individual growth and personal
hopes (say using your Western classical goals) -- if you don't mesh well
with, say, Person B on one or more of those items, even if you get along
just fine -- there is potential you will spend less time with B and
devote your energy to Person A.
True, one doesn't have to automatically choose to exclude one of them. But if Person A's emotional inputs feel better or make you more functional than B's, there will probably be a Pavlovian-rewards tendency to spend more time with A. But... the more interesting case is if one really enjoys time spent with A under some set of circumstances, but enjoys B more under some (much different?) set of circumstances. I.e., "when I'm in this persona, A is strong and reassuring and I feel loved, while B seems flaky and unreliable, but when I'm [in different persona] A seems dull and static while B is energetic and I feel more creative around zir." Self-modification through one's daily choice of companions... what a concept ;-).
This line starts to become dangerously close to giving a neurobiologically-rational basis for polyamory as more Highly Evolved in humans, so I'm going to let it drop here :-). It also brings up fascinating implications for group and community dynamics. But I'd highly recommend the book in any case...
