Conference quark::human_relations-v1

To put it in a cliche, "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't".
Many people in these situations rationalize to themselves that it would be
worse without their partner than with them, that they really do deserve all
these bad things happening and that it is their fault.  Even when the
relationship is "merely" unsatisfying, many people find it very difficult
to take action to break it off.  It's much, much worse when one is dependent
in some way on one's partner.

					Steve

    re: .1 (Steve)
    
        I tend to agree.  There are probably lots of reasons, among
    them the co-dependency that is impossible to sustain unless there
    is a willing "co-conspirator."  There are also other reasons lots
    less obvious.  For example, intimacy is a key.  Many times people
    back off from relationships because the other person is "getting
    too close."  That is, their personna is getting worn and there is
    a feeling that the shadow part of the self will be exposed.  This
    is one of the greatest fears that people have of themselves.  When
    it starts to happen, they move away so that the personna has time
    to hide the shadow once again.
        There is also the fact that many if not most people are in 
    relationships not out of preference, but rather from a sense of
    need.  In these cases, it may be a need for sex or a need for
    belonging, for instance.  Too, there accompanies these needs a massive
    fear of loneliness (a need to be not-lonely or alone.)  "I need you"
    is really an "I need *anybody* and you're convenient.  I don't really
    want you, I simply need you--to care for my various needs--but once
    I find someone better, better lover, better housekeeper, better
    companion, better talker, better provider, more fun, then you're out
    of here.  I don't want to grow with you, I want to benefit from you."
        I think that anyone who rushes into a relationship with someone
    who hasn't "completed" with their former mate is asking for lots of
    problems.  People tend to rush into new relationships because of the
    vacuum that was formed by the loss of a partner.  It used to be that
    men did this faster, though women might be able to do it easier...
    I don't know if gender generalizations hold up here anymore.  In 
    any case, people who aren't willing to clean up their emotional act
    before seeking someone else are not only likely to hurt someone else
    (because there will be some deception) but eventually will hurt 
    themselves.  Those who find someone who "just left" are also likely
    to be sticking themselves with bad news--because that other person
    may appear to be interested in *you* but is really primarily interested
    in *your service.* 
    
    
    Frederick
    

    
    
    Change is scary.  It is much easier to stay in an unsatisfying
    relationship because it does not involve being scared.  It has
    alot to do with self esteem too.  I stayed way to long in
    a relationship I should probably have left three years earlier.
    This person and I had a great time as far as fun, but he was
    not good for me and love really did blind me to that fact.
    Once I realized that love did not have to hurt was when I
    realized that I had to leave.  Yet leaving the security of
    what was known was very hard.  Truthfully I did not know what
    would happen once it was over.  Just took it one day at a
    time and believed that my higher power was guiding me in 
    the correct direction.  Life today is much happier even
    though I am still single.    

one aspect of this question:

passionate, romantic love seems to last somewhat less than 6 months - yes,
they have scientists out there checking on these things...after that, the
relationship gradually slips into a companionable, mutually comfortable
relationship with some highs, and some lows, and occasional temporary
rebirths of passion.

Now, when someone stays in a comfortable relationship, they usually stay
not for the "magic" (because it won't be there for long-term lovers or
partners), but because of shared values, shared dreams and long-term
plans, and shared responsibilities.  I don't think this is necessarily
a bad thing.  This society has a very bent idea of relationships due to
the very powerful input of the almost constant visions of passionate love...
our music - which we can listen to virtually every waking moment - our
television programs and movies - our books (for those of us who bother
to read) all proclaim the power of undying "love" .... while portraying
temporary lust.  Which is wonderful....however, it isn't most of what makes a
lasting relationship.  We are uniquely surrounded by these images - our
ancestors had only the occasional portrayal of passion on the stage or
in music - much tamer visions of it to be sure - to influence them.  They
also had the day-to-day images of people getting on with their married
lives on all sides of them.  Is it any wonder that they had much better
success at staying in marriages and finding reasons to be content?  Their 
expectations of the relationship were much more realistic than ours tend 
to be.

Yes, there are folks who are genuinely unhappy, unfulfilled, and limited
by their choice of partner....but, by and large, most "unhappy" couples
could make a go of it for the long term if they both chose to.  They need
to get couselling to learn to appreciate the subtle rewards of day-to-day
contact with one another...and they need to work at keeping a little magic
in their lives.  They need to learn to be people who value the relationship.
They need to get some time away from each other in order to appreciate the
times together - They need to make "dates" to enjoy time together.  They
need to try and find something whimsical that they can BOTH enjoy and share..
a family project or hobby that will bind them rather than separate them.

Perhaps those who do stay together are just people who do value the
relationship and feel it is worth it to ride out the less-than-perfect
periods we will all have in our lives?

	D-who-isn't-married-but-who-knows-some-genuinely-happy-marrieds

    
    I think it depends alot on what the person is comfortable with.
    If they grew up in a dynamic family environment - full of intense
    ups and downs, and they are comfortable with that, then they probably
    won't settle for the ho-hum safe relationship.  If in the other hand,
    they grew up in a not-too-intense family, (no great fights or real
    warm-fuzzy times), then they may be happier in that kind of a marriage.
    
    Or it could just be fear of the unknown.  There's really quite a few
    reasons to prefer the safe and narrow, even if it's unsatisfying.
    The most difficult part of all of this is reconciling the logic in
    all of us with the emotion in some of us.  (Logic meaning the
    analytical reasons for sticking with what's safe.)  I also believe that
    society teaches us to devalue our emotions.  The problem is that
    happiness is an emotion and can only be reached by listening to the
    proper combination of logic AND emotion.  And I wish I knew what that
    formula was.
    
    Rachael

    
    	.0 -
    
    	Read "Women who love too much", by Robin Norwood. I find the answers
    to your questions are all given right away!
    
    	The part I'm reading talks about the family dynamics of childhood.
    It seeks to connect what happened in a woman's childhood to the
    choices that woman makes in a relationship partner. The sense of
    "comfort" is deeply connected to the possibility of resolving issues
    of long ago, with a woman's relationship to her family, as a child.
    This is why a woman can apparently prefer a relationship that is
    clearly "not as good" or "not as healthy" as one she could easily
    otherwise have.
    
    	Though this book is written about and intended to help women,
    pretty much *all* the concepts can apply equally to men as well. I find 
    it very insightful, especially as I'm examining my own behaviors and
    choices, conscious or unconscious, that I'm making in my marriage 
    relationship today.
    
    	I believe the book ends on the idea that resolving the issues
    of long ago, with a woman's relationship to her family of origin
    as a child, *cannot* happen in the context of a relationship with
    a man or lover who happens to have the necessary profile to be
    overcome. That this must happen in the context of a relationship 
    with a group of people who are all recovering from the specific 
    childhood issues at hand. That this must happen first, or must at 
    least be an established and ongoing process, before a healthy 
    relationship can be found and maintained.
    
    	Though I'm not exactly sure, cause I havent finished reading
    it yet.
    
    	Joe