What does it mean to be in a relationship?

[WaeV]

Most everyone knows someone who has been affected by divorce. I've heard many different people say such things as

 

[Peppermint]

How is it that two people enamored enough by love to declare an eternal bond between them can find themselves filing for divorce twenty years later? How can two kids say “I love you” after two weeks and break up less than two months later? How did their understanding of love and relationships change? Have you been in a similar situation? How did your undersatnding of love and relationships change?

Because they've formed their relationships on the basis of infatuation and superficial sexual attraction. There's even a quasi-scientific explanation for it:

When infatuated we experience a surge of dopamine that rushes through the brain causing us to feel good. Norepinephrine flows through the brain stimulating production of adrenaline (pounding heart). Phenylethalimine (found in chocolate) creates a feeling of bliss. Irrational romantic sentiments may be caused by oxytocin, a primary sexual arousal hormone that signals orgasm and feelings of emotional attachment. Together these chemicals sometimes override the brain activity that governs logic.

Love and infatuation aren't the same thing. They may overlap though, or the infatuation may grow into real amorous commitment, but infatuation is still largely a biological process which serves to create temporary chemical dependency on a partner during the initial stage of relationship (the effects of infatuation can last up to 18 months); nature's way of keeping two people together, prompting reproduction and any possible offspring has a higher chance of survival that way.

Love in the context of a lasting/serious relationship is in my opinion a more conscious choice based on existing affection, a decision to preserve, invest time, effort, resources, honesty and trust into the union. Mutual acceptance, cooperation and respect. This is what I think constitutes a relationship.

However people are dynamic creatures and their relations and feelings are a constant subject to change and influence. Sometimes even genuine feelings and earnest devotion can't salvage a relationship.

 

[analyst]

I'm divorced. I've watched multiple friends go through divorces. It happens. As humans, we are human, and we make mistakes. In almost all of the instances, both people went into the marriage with the best of intentions and wanted it to work. And in the end, one side broke it off for the reasons that, deep down, they probably always figured would end the relationship. Failure isn't an easy thing to accept.

I loved my ex-wife when I was with her, and I love her to this day. I am not the right man for her, nor is she the right woman for me. We loved each other, but we just couldn't fulfill one another's needs enough to make it a successful relationship. Sometimes you do best by letting go, acknowledging your mistakes, and in the end, deciding that you need to do what it takes to make you happy...

 

[WaeV]

Hmm... I adapted my OP from an introductory paragraph to an essay I was writing, and I fear that its tone may have wrongfully come across as a melancholy and dejected rather than curious and inquiring.


Anyways, here are some paraphrased responses I got on another forum (which incidentally fell to the same problem) which I think you might find interesting:

Consider a relationship a living, breathing entity which requires sustenance. If it's not fed, watered and taken care of, it dies.

I think the thing that makes something between two people a "relationship" instead of just two people passing each other on the street is the expectation of continuing contact. If you ride the same bus every day or buy coffee at the same place, you can have a "relationship" with those people. When you go to work or school every day, your teacher, boss, fellow students and co-workers show up and fulfill the expectations of those relationships. If they drop the ball, they can be fired or expelled. As you progress toward friendship then to romantic relationships and marriage the expectation of continuing contact, certain behaviors, and "turning toward" each other increases and becomes more important.

I think people can outgrow each other and not every relationship needs to last for years and years. Sometimes you can nurture the entity that is the relationship and it can die anyway.
It seems like in today's world the commitment factor takes a back seat to the feelings factor.

I once heard relationships compared to gardens - choosing a partner is like picking a place to plant your garden. You need a place with the right soil and a good amount of sunlight, but as time goes on what's more important is the dedication of you and your partner to tending the garden - picking our weeds, planting seeds, watering, and even just sitting in and appreciating it. When neglected, even the best of gardens can wither and decay, but when properly tended, a garden can provide for many of your needs with nutritious and delicious vegetables.

There are two types of love. Romantic/ sentimental/ passionate love, and practical /compassionate love.

The first has more affect on the person feeling it (It involves emotions and generally stands for the 'honeymoon' period of a relationship which can last from 6-30 months.) People who believe that this is 'the be all and end all' of love are setting themselves up to bitter dissapointment.

The second is a more long lasting type of love, and takes into account that love/ partner is not perfect.

Many young people (Sadly more girls than guys IMO) believe in ''passionate love conquering all'', when in reality passionate love does nothing to keep a relationship going, it is passionate love which morphs into compassionate love that ensures that a relationship will last. I blame Disney.. Seriously, hear me out:

Disney portrays a notion of love that does 'conquer all'. The end result is always a 'happily ever after'. No matter who the character has to go against, what trials and tribulations they have, romantic love comes out on top.... Funny, they never show how to deal with the 'ever after'.

Many of the friends i have who have either been divorced, or who are sadly considering it (And yes, there are too many) did/ do it out of sheer dissapointment with their notion of love. The honeymoon period ended, and now all that is left are the real life issues they were so happy to skim over when their hormones were going wild.

I think that that little phrase "enamoured by love" in your question reveals a lot about the way our society (I'm talking about Western; if you're not in that category, please correct me) views love and marriage. The idea that "love" is important in and of itself, and the fascination that we seem to have with love in and of itself rather than love for our partners, is probably one of the main causes of the kind of relationship inconsistencies you're talking about.

When the focus is on "love" rather than your partner, there are a whole lot of expectations that it's unlikely actual reality can even begin to stack up against.

The garden analogy that you mentioned in a later post was an excellent one. One also can't forget the conditions on which a marriage is based (as somebody already mentioned). Perhaps you really want to have a pond, but you pick somebody who's more suited to a rock garden, and think "I love her/him, so it'll all work out"... that's how a lot of people treat relationships now, and it's very short-sighted and unrealistic.

The problem that I think we see quite commonly is treating "love" or "marriage" as the goal and then forgetting that neither of those is or can be a static thing. It takes a lot of dedication and communication to make a relationship work and keep working. But the rewards are wonderful.



I was pressured into saying that I "loved" somebody when I was very young, and the effect that it had on the relationship was disastrous. From the perspective of the children who say "I love you" and then break up shortly thereafter, I would say this (having been there): it's more about loving the notion of being love than actually being in love. There's no way that deep, abiding, and realistic love can be built in a few months.



Being in a relationship means different things to different people. To me, it means being romantically and sexually dedicated to one person, and agreeing to adjust as far as I am able and no further (and expect him to do the same) in order to make our relationship work. It also means being honest and open in our communication in order to make sure that we're on the same page.

There's also the tacit assumption between us that if we become unhappy with the relationship, we will either need to work through the issue and be happy again, or end it.


"Consider a relationship a living, breathing entity which requires sustenance. If it's not fed, watered and taken care of, it dies."
This is a very good way to put it.

 

[Gaze]

Very good quotes. Nice reality check. And they're all pretty much correct I think. It is too easy to get caught up in the feeling or romanticism of love, and not consider the person or compatibility. Another thing I would add is the tendency to confuse strong liking or attraction for love. It's very easy to want to trust our feelings, but superficial feelings can be so easily confused for love and real affection. Simply because there is an attraction, won't necessarily signify that it's anything more than that, and it doesn't necessarily imply there's enough for a relationship or lasting committment.

 

[Faye]

"Together these chemicals sometimes override the brain activity that governs logic."

Wait, there is a logical part of the brain? Where?

 

[WaeV]

Heh, I assume they're speaking in metaphor.

 

[bamf]

To be in a relationship is to make compromises and to try and meet the other person half way. If you aren't willing to take your partner's needs into consideration, you don't truly care for them (in my opinion). Being in a relationship is work, and it definitely is not easy. It's not all lovey dovey all the time. It isn't always easy and happy. It will only succeed if both parties are working towards coming to the same understanding and respect.

 

[That Girl]

First. A quote from House of Leaves:

If the arrow is here at A and the target is here at B, then in the course of getting to B the arrow must travel at least half that distance which I'll call point C. Now in getting from C to B the arrow must travel half that distance, call that point D, and so on. Well the fun starts when you realize you can keep dividing up space forever, paring it down into smaller and smaller fractions until, well, the arrow never reaches point B.

Question: Does this mean that no one can really meet ''halfway'' and there will always be that one person that is just a fraction off which makes them unhappier than the other person?

Answer: I personally believe that coming to an exact middle point in a relationship is impossible since every time you move a new halfway point is made (so regardless of how you compromise you will never get to the point are attempting). But every time you do move that halfway point is closer to the two opposing sides. If each person moves together at an equal rate (or even if one person moves faster than the other) then it becomes easier and easier to see all sides from the point you are at. It almost makes the impossibility of coming to middle ground not as depressing because you will at least be able to see where the other person is coming from. In this fashion each person still gets their own stance (point on the line). Reaching the middle ground becomes unnecessary.

 

[Faye]

Well, a marriage is as much an economic/business agreement as it is an ideal. What it means dependents heavily on the socio-economic reality of the parties involved. It is very complicated, but I wouldn't attribute the increase in divorce or divorce to a lack of willingness or attribution of meaning on the part of people. That may be a factor, but it isn't an independent factor, so attempting to understand it as such will obscure the reality of the issue.

 

[slant]

To be honest with you I have no idea. Basically, recently it's been proven to me that I have no desire to be in a relationship whatsoever. The first two or three days of the idea are absolutely fantastic and amazing but then comes the logical in depth assessment and I determine that everything I believe in is against relying on another person in any way that could be avoided so I just overlook it. Friendships to me are much more satisfactory.

I think people like relationships because of sex pretty much. If they didn't want sex they would just want friends and family.

 

[WaeV]

To be in a relationship is to make compromises and to try and meet the other person half way. If you aren't willing to take your partner's needs into consideration, you don't truly care for them (in my opinion). Being in a relationship is work, and it definitely is not easy. It's not all lovey dovey all the time. It isn't always easy and happy. It will only succeed if both parties are working towards coming to the same understanding and respect.

Hmm... well, your post makes sense, but I think the word "compromise" needs to be clarified.

This is from the book in which the garden example is made (Intimate Marriage: Developing a Life Partnership, by Barry and Emily McCarthy).

We remember an aunt at our wedding encouraging us, especially Emily, to learn to compromise: "Marriage requires compromises." Marital compromises result in frustration and stagnation, they can sink a marriage into a morass of dissatisfaction. Conflicting feelings and wants are a natural part of marriage. Trying to compromise away issues won't work.
We advocate an agreement process in which each spouse states feelings and perceptions, generates alternatives, addresses the costs and benefits of each alternative, negotiates a viable agreement, and creates a system to monitor and implement a successful change. A viable agreement meets the needs of each individual as well as couple needs.

I feel like that's similar to what you were trying to say, but the term "compromise" seems to be more about averaging away issues without really coming to terms with them. The agreement process strategy is more about coming to terms with the issues behind the disagreement, and then agreeing on a solution.

 

[NeverAmI]

Don't forget children as well. Many people do want children, to raise a family. In many countries, the idea of marriage and having a family is the ultimate motivator in the culture.

Some societies still revere marriage as a moral and religious contract rather than socio-economic such as we have in the US. The religious and even moral aspect is more of an option for the participants to integrate in the US.

Also, I think the monogamous relationship still holds much power in that you choose the one person in the world who you will trust and provide for above all else (besides children). It is really hard to tell who you can trust, and so many like that rock-solid agreement that "This is who I can trust, we are in this together."

I think a lot of people are quick to give up, myself included. Miscommunication and emotional turmoil can really alter your perspective of someone and I think it takes a certain level of maturity and commitment to work through the hard times.

Some people just don't work well together, and that can be blatantly obvious at times. I am always amazed at those peopl who do stick around. Like the wife who put up with her huband's fits and aggressiveness for over 20 years after he could no longer develop new memories, she stuck with and helped him through all of it. That simply blows my mind!

 

[WaeV]

I think people like relationships because of sex pretty much. If they didn't want sex they would just want friends and family.

Well, yes I think I would agree with you. But it's more than just sex, there's a lot of things dependent on and resulting from sex. I'm normally pretty good with metaphors, but all I can think of right now is that sex is like a hydrogen atom, which is a component in a lot of different compounds.

I think that ideally one's partner is also one's best friend. But whereas friends are only emotionally/mentally intimate, partners/spouses are also physically intimate. What if every person you have a relationship with (friend, family, romantic, whatever) has a sort of scale of emotional and physical intimacy with you? Like, your sister is allowed to tickle you, but not your friend Joe. Anyways, a partner would ideally be the most intimate in all categories. Everyone has intimacy needs (though to different degrees) and for some people a marriage is the best way to meet those needs in a stable, reliable, trusting fashion.

Aside from physical intimacy for its own sake, slant, sex also allows a couple to have children, which is another thing entirely. So while the desire for sex is one of the key drives for establishing a partnership versus a friendship, it's not quite so basic.

Edit: Haha, you already started to address my last point before I finished posting. Good point about other cultures, too. I may have a post on that in a day or two.

 

[Gaze]

I think desire for levels of physical intimacy is relative. Not everyone feels that strong and constant physical intimacy is necessary to feel close. Sometimes, emotional intimacy matters more. Of course emotional intimacy tends to create a desire for close physical intimacy, but physical intimacy by itself may not be enough for many.

 

[NeverAmI]

I think trust, or the feeling of providing for one another in all aspects is the core foundation, sex is one component of provision and not completely necessary.

Trust is quite foundational for many women in sex, although not all.

 

[Gaze]

I think trust, or the feeling of providing for one another in all aspects is the core foundation, sex is one component of provision and not completely necessary.

Trust is quite foundational for many women in sex, although not all.

Can't speak for all women, and i'd venture to say, many men probably feel this way as well, but trust is usually considered a basis for close emotional and physical intimacy.

 

[NeverAmI]

Can't speak for all woman, and i'd venture to say, many men probably feel this way as well, that trust is the key to intimacy.

It is true for me, but I know plenty of men who have proven quite the contrary. But maybe they feel self-sufficient enough to not need the trust of another person. Or, if they are cheating, they feel the trust of their true significant other is enough and so they do not need it in their extramarital affairs. That is, until the significant other finds out!

When I think of people that don't need trust, I think of those that participate in 1 night stands and really don't know much about the other person, they simply want to be physically stimulated. Perhaps emotionally too, but it is more of a thrill-seeking rather than security-seeking. Perhaps the two are intertwined as well. I am not sure!

 

[Gaze]

Perhaps emotionally too, but it is more of a thrill-seeking rather than security-seeking. Perhaps the two are intertwined as well. I am not sure!

This^^^. So, it really depends on what they are seeking from the relationship.

 

[NeverAmI]

With some men you also get the misplaced idea of hoarding resources. They see sex as a metric of accomplishment.

The more new partners one has sex with, the more successful that person is. That is commonly used to increase social status with others. I don't know many that would have that mindset outside of a social context, it would be more based on thrill-seeking.