Relationship Woes and Advice 25: Now with extra Valentine

[Xondoure]

It doesn't make sense otherwise, though. To get money, one must work. To get fame, one must achieve. To get love, one must earn it as well, no? It makes sense.

Why does changing one's relationship status suddenly entitle one to being given things? It doesn't compute for me. Perhaps I'm just not able to understand, but I do not. Could you explain further?

It's not that you shouldn't do things for your partner, and communicate openly with them about your feelings and commitment, it's that the other person reciprocating that expression of appreciation should not have to be earned. And also that just because (and bear with me this is an example and I don't use you as in 'you' but you as a general descriptor) you bought her flowers doesn't mean you're entitled to more of her affection. Basically bargaining with affection can lead to petty behavior, while simply being supportive, respectful, and affectionate because you like to see them smile leads to healthier relationships.

[Jallorn]

It doesn't make sense otherwise, though. To get money, one must work. To get fame, one must achieve. To get love, one must earn it as well, no? It makes sense.

Why does changing one's relationship status suddenly entitle one to being given things? It doesn't compute for me. Perhaps I'm just not able to understand, but I do not. Could you explain further?

You earn love and affection by being someone worthy of love and affection: basically, the person giving it decides whether you've earned it or not, not you. So don't worry so much about it and just be yourself.

[Amaril]

You earn love and affection by being someone worthy of love and affection: basically, the person giving it decides whether you've earned it or not, not you. So don't worry so much about it and just be yourself.

Doesn't it strike you as somewhat contradictory to give that advice, though, given that much of this thread recently has been devoted to discussing how many people's relationship problems stem from them not being worthy of affection because of who they are?

[arguskos]

I feel that this aside may be retarding the progress of other, more vital, conversation somewhat. To that end, I am henceforth spoiler'ing my responses, to save visual space.

Spoiler: Responses

Show

(Responses in order, and they speak to each other as well as to the individual I am responding directly to. This seemed more appropriate than multi-posting. Apologies for any confusion.)

It's a very mercenary approach to relationships. Part of the idea of love is that it's freely given once it's there. And it doesn't get there by being *earned* and the idea of having to earn it is part of a bunch of problematic narratives that encourage sexual harassment.

I mean, if they don't reciprocate your feelings, the answer isn't to work harder for such a cruel taskmaster, it's to find someone who actually cares about you.

...I am somewhat concerned that you saw "earn" and read "harassment". Did I say such? If so, I need to make some clarifications. Perhaps what I mean by "earn" is not universal. Allow me to expand.

When I say that I feel I must earn affection and love, I mean it in the sense that I must prove that I deserve the other individual's affection and love. Only they can give it, obviously, and that determination belongs to them and them alone. Among my criteria for deserving is a certain respect for the sanctity of other individuals. I do not condone harassment or assault, in any form. Should I even suspect that my behavior is crossing a line or making the other uncomfortable, I remove myself from the relationship, permanently. This has happened before and removal swiftly dealt with the issue. I am also clear with my partners to always, ALWAYS, communicate any difficulty they may have with my behavior as soon as it arises, that I can change and fix it.

If you still feel my behavior is leading towards harassment, very well. I will consider further and adjust as necessary. Perhaps a more permanent adjourning of relationships is in order for me, should that be the case.

It's not that you shouldn't do things for your partner, and communicate openly with them about your feelings and commitment, it's that the other person reciprocating that expression of appreciation should not have to be earned. And also that just because (and bear with me this is an example and I don't use you as in 'you' but you as a general descriptor) you bought her flowers doesn't mean you're entitled to more of her affection. Basically bargaining with affection can lead to petty behavior, while simply being supportive, respectful, and affectionate because you like to see them smile leads to healthier relationships.

(Emphasis mine.)

Why? I have yet to hear a reasoning behind that statement from anyone, beyond them simply saying it again in a slightly different manner. To my mind, it seems no different than any other interaction with other living beings. Trust is earned, is it not? So is respect. Why not love? What is unique about love that exempts it from this criteria?

(Note: Please, do not mistake my questions above for attacks. You surely have reasoning. I am simply curious as to what they are. I wish only understanding of a subject I am struggling with. Please, help me see as you do. )

You earn love and affection by being someone worthy of love and affection: basically, the person giving it decides whether you've earned it or not, not you. So don't worry so much about it and just be yourself.

This is honestly not much different than what I already do. Being worthy of love and affection requires that I adjust my behavior accordingly for each partner, as they each desire different things and judge different things worthy. You and I are agreed, it seems.

[rs2excelsior]

Doesn't it strike you as somewhat contradictory to give that advice, though, given that much of this thread recently has been devoted to discussing how many people's relationship problems stem from them not being worthy of affection because of who they are?

Wait, what? I haven't seen anyone on this thread say anything like this.

On the second point, I disagree almost entirely. Altruism and selfishness are opposed concepts. Concepts in opposition cannot, generally speaking, exist in harmony. Usually, these kinds of oppositions destroy each other. By being truly altruistic, you discard selfishness and become something greater than you were. This is why those who are highly altruistic are often called selfless: because they are beyond selfishness. It seems to me that they cannot exist together. If I am selfish, then I am not altruistic. This seems to be a bad thing to my mind.

To return to the original point, this is why I don't particularly believe that I should be able to ask for things in a relationship. By asking, I show a lack of altruistic motive. I wouldn't want to date a selfish person. Why should my partner allow or expect that behavior from me? But, the human truth is that I *do* want things, thus making me selfish. And so the cycle goes. I have no solution. :-/

You seem to be under the impression selfishness and altruism are two polar opposites with no middle ground between them. That if you want ANYTHING you are being selfish and therefore cannot be an altruistic person. This is no more true than the idea that good and evil are purely "black and white" with no grey between them. We're all human, we all want things. That doesn't make you selfish. If there is nothing that you want, there's no motivation to look for a relationship in the first place (because everyone who is looking for a relationship wants something out of it, even if it's just to make someone else happy). Selfishness is not wanting things or asking things of other people; it is a disregard for the wants and needs of others in favor of your own.

And, on your very last point: that has yet to be determined. Deserve is a strong word and I am unsure I have earned that right yet. Until I accomplish something worthy of recognition, the right to happiness is not in my grasp, as I see things. Perhaps I am blinded by my own internal prejudices though. It is hard to see clearly.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." (quoting from memory here, so I might be a word or two off). Neither you nor anyone else has to EARN the right to be happy, any more than they have to earn a right to live or to be free. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise--not even yourself.

This is honestly not much different than what I already do. Being worthy of love and affection requires that I adjust my behavior accordingly for each partner, as they each desire different things and judge different things worthy. You and I are agreed, it seems.

So you believe it is necessary that you have to alter your behavior for your romantic partner to meet her expectations. Why do you feel that you do not have the same right to go into a relationship with certain expectations?

Also, I think a point of clarification is needed: you say you don't believe you can ask for "things" in a relationship. What kind of things are you talking about? I think that might let all of us offer slightly better advice.

[Amaril]

Oh, wait a second, I'm thinking of the "What do Girls want from a Guy physically" thread. An ongoing discussion has been happening there about "friendzoning" (ew ), and the point has been made, as usual for such discussions, that if all you can say about yourself is that you're "nice", you don't deserve a partner.

Anyway, if I may, I want to take a stab at explaining to arguskos what people mean when they say you don't need to earn love. See, in a certain way, you do--you earn a person's love and affection by being someone they want to give it to. The thing is, though, that everyone has different criteria for determining who such people are for them. The reason people say things like "just be yourself" is because, while earning someone's trust, for example, is something almost anyone can do while staying true to themselves, there is no-one alive who can meet everyone's criteria for who deserves their love. So, the whole idea is that instead of trying to earn the love of people whose criteria you don't already meet, you should seek out people who already see you as deserving of their love for who you are naturally--because unless you're a complete monster (and even then, in many cases), there will always be at least one such person out there.

Does that make any more sense?

[arguskos]

Spoiler: Responses

Show

You seem to be under the impression selfishness and altruism are two polar opposites with no middle ground between them. That if you want ANYTHING you are being selfish and therefore cannot be an altruistic person. This is no more true than the idea that good and evil are purely "black and white" with no grey between them. We're all human, we all want things. That doesn't make you selfish. If there is nothing that you want, there's no motivation to look for a relationship in the first place (because everyone who is looking for a relationship wants something out of it, even if it's just to make someone else happy). Selfishness is not wanting things or asking things of other people; it is a disregard for the wants and needs of others in favor of your own.

(Emphasis mine.)
But isn't making a request of someone else *precisely* that? If I ask my partner if we can spend more time together than we currently do, is that not me prioritizing what I want over what they want? Is that not the very definition of selfishness?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." (quoting from memory here, so I might be a word or two off). Neither you nor anyone else has to EARN the right to be happy, any more than they have to earn a right to live or to be free. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise--not even yourself.

Yes, a smart guy said it ~250 years ago, therefore it must be true. /sarcasm

In reality (and non-sarcastically), I disagree with that statement's accuracy. We are not all created equal, no matter how rosily we (and I) might want to look at things. There are those of us born with more liberty than others. By way of example: I am a white man in America. I, by virtue of my birthplace and skin color, have more rights and liberties than an Indian woman in Mumbai. This is sad, but also true. Why should anything else be held to a different standard?

This is my biggest concern with this discussion: no one has yet explained why love and/or happiness should be held to a less restrictive standard than everything else in life. I do not understand this idea. It makes little to no sense for me. On that note, I deeply appreciate that you are all trying to help me see more clearly. I am learning a great deal.

So you believe it is necessary that you have to alter your behavior for your romantic partner to meet her expectations. Why do you feel that you do not have the same right to go into a relationship with certain expectations?

Because each individual creates those expectations for themselves. This is the same reason I do not preach to others, about anything at all, or attempt to sway you to my brand of thinking: because the only inviolate right I truly accept is the right to determine how you interface with the world for yourself. I have no right, nor place, to tell you how to live. Thus, I never tell my partners how to approach relationships. They must determine that for themselves.

This is somewhat confusing, I know. A limitation of the language's impreciseness and my inability to perfectly convey ideas. My apologies.

Also, I think a point of clarification is needed: you say you don't believe you can ask for "things" in a relationship. What kind of things are you talking about? I think that might let all of us offer slightly better advice.

"Things" was code for "requests". Any request, of any kind. A request for increased (or any) physical intimacy (not necessarily sex, merely asking for a hug falls into this category as well), a request to spend time together, a request for aid of any kind, anything. I meant nothing sinister. The only exceptions are minor things, such as grabbing me a drink from the fridge while they are up and in the kitchen getting something already. Incidental requests are thus discounted from the debate. Any request that requires an imposition is fair game for this discussion.

And yes, I rarely, if ever, ask my partners for anything. The last time I did so went poorly, despite it being an emergency on my part, so I haven't done so since, beyond the minor incidental requests. I allow my partners to dictate the flow of things, as suits them and their inclination. My attitude and desires are kept off the table, for the most part, save in moments of weakness.

Oh, wait a second, I'm thinking of the "What do Girls want from a Guy physically" thread. An ongoing discussion has been happening there about "friendzoning" (ew ), and the point has been made, as usual for such discussions, that if all you can say about yourself is that you're "nice", you don't deserve a partner.

Despite this not being a topic in this thread, I basically agree with the latter sentiment. If I have nothing to offer, why should someone desire me? Seems logical to me. I suspect however, that you would/will disagree, based on the tone of your post here.

Anyway, if I may,

Thank you for doing so. You appear erudite.

I want to take a stab at explaining to arguskos what people mean when they say you don't need to earn love. See, in a certain way, you do--you earn a person's love and affection by being someone they want to give it to. The thing is, though, that everyone has different criteria for determining who such people are for them. The reason people say things like "just be yourself" is because, while earning someone's trust, for example, is something almost anyone can do while staying true to themselves, there is no-one alive who can meet everyone's criteria for who deserves their love. So, the whole idea is that instead of trying to earn the love of people whose criteria you don't already meet, you should seek out people who already see you as deserving of their love for who you are naturally--because unless you're a complete monster (and even then, in many cases), there will always be at least one such person out there.

Ah. I see somewhat more clearly. The phrase "be yourself" appears to be a code for something approximating "do not compromise your character for affection", whereas my position is much more ok with compromising in this area. I must say, I do not agree with "be yourself", understood in this way. It seems to me to be lazy, in a sense. By saying that you are unwilling to change who you are to meet a partner's wants and needs, it is again selfish. You are putting yourself and your desires over another person's, instead of being mutable. That seems... unkind. I am not sure why I'm having this reaction, it seems a bit severe to me, but something about that concept is quite unpalatable to me.

Does that make any more sense?

Yes, I understand it better now. Thank you, Amaril, your contribution has been most helpful.

And again, thank you each for contributing. I am... difficult to talk with sometimes, I know that. I am trying to be somewhat more approachable and open to new ideas in this discussion. I hope I have not been too closed or unkind to your ideas and perspectives. If I have been, please tell me and I'll do whatever necessary to rectify things. Thank you.

[Amaril]

Ah. I see somewhat more clearly. The phrase "be yourself" appears to be a code for something approximating "do not compromise your character for affection", whereas my position is much more ok with compromising in this area. I must say, I do not agree with "be yourself", understood in this way. It seems to me to be lazy, in a sense. By saying that you are unwilling to change who you are to meet a partner's wants and needs, it is again selfish. You are putting yourself and your desires over another person's, instead of being mutable. That seems... unkind. I am not sure why I'm having this reaction, it seems a bit severe to me, but something about that concept is quite unpalatable to me.

Well, the thing about not compromising your character for affection is definitely true, but I think this understanding kind of misses the point. The point isn't that you shouldn't change who you are to earn the affections of others--the point is, you can't change who you are. Not really. You can affect some things, like learning new skills, but the real core of who you are isn't something you can or should change. If you try to go against who you are, acting in a way that isn't genuine for the sake of impressing someone else, then you won't be happy, even if they end up loving you for it. And really, doing that would be a disservice to them, because as good as you may be at pretending to be the person they want, there's still someone out there who actually is that person, and they deserve to be with them.

And all of that is completely okay, because no matter who you are, there will be at least one person out there who loves you for it.

Yes, I understand it better now. Thank you, Amaril, your contribution has been most helpful.

It's my pleasure. I'm of the opinion that this is one of the most important lessons to learn in order to find happiness, and I'm happy to help someone understand it better.

[Aedilred]

And all of that is completely okay, because no matter who you are, there will be at least one person out there who loves you for it.

I seem to be stuck in "blunt" mode at the moment. But that is one of those pieces of advice I hear fairly frequently and find to be absolutely useless, because the real problem is finding that person (or one of those people). Moreover given that relationships inevitably involve a degree of compromise, it's the sort of thing that encourages people to blow off existing relationships which are otherwise perfectly good but have hit a rocky patch in favour of trying to find the mythical perfect partner, even if that's not what's actually meant.

[rs2excelsior]

But isn't making a request of someone else *precisely* that? If I ask my partner if we can spend more time together than we currently do, is that not me prioritizing what I want over what they want? Is that not the very definition of selfishness?

...no. No, it's not. You aren't prioritizing why you want, you are expressing it. Demanding that you will spend more time together is selfish. Asking if she wants to as well is not, at least not by any definition that I can imagine. A request is not a demand--the other person is free to say no. And if a friend asked me for something (much less a significant other), be it time or whatever, I'd gladly give it if it was in my power to do so without even thinking it might be selfish of them to ask, unless they did so constantly or expected me to comply even when I said I couldn't or wouldn't.

I'm trying to come across clearly here, but like you said, language is imperfect, so I don't know how comprehensible this will be.

Yes, a smart guy said it ~250 years ago, therefore it must be true. /sarcasm

In reality (and non-sarcastically), I disagree with that statement's accuracy. We are not all created equal, no matter how rosily we (and I) might want to look at things. There are those of us born with more liberty than others. By way of example: I am a white man in America. I, by virtue of my birthplace and skin color, have more rights and liberties than an Indian woman in Mumbai. This is sad, but also true. Why should anything else be held to a different standard?

No, it's not necessarily true. But "a smart guy" said it, so it bears consideration.

You speak of how much liberty people have, not their right to that liberty. Yes, people in America have more freedoms than people in most of the world, but that woman in Mumbai has just as much RIGHT TO liberty as you and I.

This is my biggest concern with this discussion: no one has yet explained why love and/or happiness should be held to a less restrictive standard than everything else in life. I do not understand this idea. It makes little to no sense for me.

I think no one's explained that because no one is saying that. Making a request of someone else is in no way selfish, unless that request is made without consideration of the other person. That is, in many ways, one of the basic concepts of relationships of any kind--requests can be made in either direction, with a reasonable expectation that it will be agreed to, if it is reasonable (with reasonability is determined by the type of relationship and the people involved).

You say that requesting that you and your significant other spend more time together is unreasonable and selfish. Put it another way: if she asked you to spend more time together, would you see that as selfish? You said you didn't want to date a selfish person, so would you break up with this person because she wants to spend more time with you? Based on your other posts, I don't think you would, so why should you be held to a different standard?

Bottom line, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people would not consider "let's spend more time together" to be an unreasonable or selfish request without some major additional circumstances. So, if you do think requests along that line are selfish, you're going to see most of the world as selfish, or if you only will not tolerate that behavior in yourself, you will be unhappy in your relationships, in which case I have to wonder why you'd continue in a relationship that made you unhappy anyhow.

I'd even say that reacting as badly as you imply to a request as simple as spending more time together is selfish, because she was disregarding and dismissing (I'm assuming here, based on how you phrased it) what YOU wanted out of the relationship.

[arguskos]

Spoiler: Responses

Show

Well, the thing about not compromising your character for affection is definitely true, but I think this understanding kind of misses the point. The point isn't that you shouldn't change who you are to earn the affections of others--the point is, you can't change who you are. Not really. You can affect some things, like learning new skills, but the real core of who you are isn't something you can or should change. If you try to go against who you are, acting in a way that isn't genuine for the sake of impressing someone else, then you won't be happy, even if they end up loving you for it. And really, doing that would be a disservice to them, because as good as you may be at pretending to be the person they want, there's still someone out there who actually is that person, and they deserve to be with them.

I wonder at the idea of the single soulmate. I believe that Aedilred has summed up my objections better and faster than I could have. Well done, sir/madam/<preferred pronoun here>.

And all of that is completely okay, because no matter who you are, there will be at least one person out there who loves you for it.

A lovely sentiment, but somehow, it feels hollow. Perhaps it is my cynicism at work. Likely, that is all it is.

It's my pleasure. I'm of the opinion that this is one of the most important lessons to learn in order to find happiness, and I'm happy to help someone understand it better.

And you have provided. Thank you, again.

...no. No, it's not. You aren't prioritizing why you want, you are expressing it. Demanding that you will spend more time together is selfish. Asking if she wants to as well is not, at least not by any definition that I can imagine. A request is not a demand--the other person is free to say no. And if a friend asked me for something (much less a significant other), be it time or whatever, I'd gladly give it if it was in my power to do so without even thinking it might be selfish of them to ask, unless they did so constantly or expected me to comply even when I said I couldn't or wouldn't.

And you would be a person I would like to spend time with. But that you are agreeable to my sensibilities changes nothing and means as little. I see little difference between making a demand and a request. Demands no more force the other party's hand than a request does. Either way is an imposition, and just as guilty of selfishness as the other.

The only higher degree of selfishness is using force to compel the requested/demanded action. That though is beyond the purview of this discussion.

I'm trying to come across clearly here, but like you said, language is imperfect, so I don't know how comprehensible this will be.

English is particularly bad about this. I wish, for a moment, that I was fluent in another more precise language, such as Esperanto, German, Latin, or Ancient Greek. These languages have precision on their side. Despite my degree in English, it is not a strong enough language for the precision I desire. Oh well.

No, it's not necessarily true. But "a smart guy" said it, so it bears consideration.

True enough.

You speak of how much liberty people have, not their right to that liberty. Yes, people in America have more freedoms than people in most of the world, but that woman in Mumbai has just as much RIGHT TO liberty as you and I.

Why? Give a reason or do not claim it. I see no logic behind that statement. We have no inherent rights, as though they were properties of existence. Even the one inviolable right I ascribe to is a construct I have accepted to make life function.

I think no one's explained that because no one is saying that. Making a request of someone else is in no way selfish, unless that request is made without consideration of the other person. That is, in many ways, one of the basic concepts of relationships of any kind--requests can be made in either direction, with a reasonable expectation that it will be agreed to, if it is reasonable (with reasonability is determined by the type of relationship and the people involved).

I recall asking for that at least once before the post of mine you most recently quoted. No one provided. In other words: I am asking.

You say that requesting that you and your significant other spend more time together is unreasonable and selfish. Put it another way: if she asked you to spend more time together, would you see that as selfish? You said you didn't want to date a selfish person, so would you break up with this person because she wants to spend more time with you? Based on your other posts, I don't think you would, so why should you be held to a different standard?

I would not, because they clearly would not have decided that action is a selfish one to their own reckoning. Recall: I allow each individual to judge such things for themselves, as I believe I lack the moral/intellectual/philosophical authority to dictate to that individual. If they are asking, then clearly, they have determined that they are not behaving selfishly and I will respond accordingly, situation depending.

Bottom line, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people would not consider "let's spend more time together" to be an unreasonable or selfish request without some major additional circumstances. So, if you do think requests along that line are selfish, you're going to see most of the world as selfish, or if you only will not tolerate that behavior in yourself, you will be unhappy in your relationships, in which case I have to wonder why you'd continue in a relationship that made you unhappy anyhow.

(Emphasis mine.)

That is correct. I tolerate behavior from others that I do not tolerate in myself, because it is not my place to decide what is appropriate for others to do/say/think. I hold myself to certain standards and judge my behavior accordingly. How others act is their responsibility, not mine. It cannot be mine, even if I wished it to be, due to the realities of being separate minds.

I'd even say that reacting as badly as you imply to a request as simple as spending more time together is selfish, because she was disregarding and dismissing (I'm assuming here, based on how you phrased it) what YOU wanted out of the relationship.

Perhaps. I would not be able to say. It is, again, not my place to say.

[Jallorn]

Spoiler: Responses

Show

I wonder at the idea of the single soulmate. I believe that Aedilred has summed up my objections better and faster than I could have. Well done, sir/madam/<preferred pronoun here>.


A lovely sentiment, but somehow, it feels hollow. Perhaps it is my cynicism at work. Likely, that is all it is.


And you have provided. Thank you, again.


And you would be a person I would like to spend time with. But that you are agreeable to my sensibilities changes nothing and means as little. I see little difference between making a demand and a request. Demands no more force the other party's hand than a request does. Either way is an imposition, and just as guilty of selfishness as the other.

The only higher degree of selfishness is using force to compel the requested/demanded action. That though is beyond the purview of this discussion.


English is particularly bad about this. I wish, for a moment, that I was fluent in another more precise language, such as Esperanto, German, Latin, or Ancient Greek. These languages have precision on their side. Despite my degree in English, it is not a strong enough language for the precision I desire. Oh well.


True enough.


Why? Give a reason or do not claim it. I see no logic behind that statement. We have no inherent rights, as though they were properties of existence. Even the one inviolable right I ascribe to is a construct I have accepted to make life function.


I recall asking for that at least once before the post of mine you most recently quoted. No one provided. In other words: I am asking.


I would not, because they clearly would not have decided that action is a selfish one to their own reckoning. Recall: I allow each individual to judge such things for themselves, as I believe I lack the moral/intellectual/philosophical authority to dictate to that individual. If they are asking, then clearly, they have determined that they are not behaving selfishly and I will respond accordingly, situation depending.


(Emphasis mine.)

That is correct. I tolerate behavior from others that I do not tolerate in myself, because it is not my place to decide what is appropriate for others to do/say/think. I hold myself to certain standards and judge my behavior accordingly. How others act is their responsibility, not mine. It cannot be mine, even if I wished it to be, due to the realities of being separate minds.


Perhaps. I would not be able to say. It is, again, not my place to say.

Have you looked into utilitarianism? Seems like a philosophy you would like that would also enable you to live more healthily.

[Lissou]

But isn't making a request of someone else *precisely* that? If I ask my partner if we can spend more time together than we currently do, is that not me prioritizing what I want over what they want? Is that not the very definition of selfishness?

This has been addressed but I want to insist on this point. You are simply voicing what you would like. You may think "I keep it to myself in order not to be selfish". However, what may occur is that your partner doesn't get the opportunity to spend more time with you if they also want to, because they're not given the choice/option.
Yes, they could be the one to ask first and let you decide. But if you truly want your partners to be the one in charge of the decisions, you need to let them see their options.
Right now, it seems that you expect to either disregard you completely (pretty unhealthy) or to read your mind so they can know what decisions to make. By not voicing your opinion, you're putting additional pressure on them to make decisions without having all the elements in hand.

On top of that, it sounds like you're close to doing something my ex did that ended up poorly for everyone involved: guessing what other people expect of you and sacrificing yourself doing it, without letting them know any of that.
In my former relationship, the following would happen a lot:

- A decision needs to be made. I ask my partner what he prefers between options A and B. I have no preference, or a small preference towards B.
- My partner assumes I would want him to pick A. His own preference, however, is B. He insists that he definitely wants A.
- I assume he picked what he preferred since that's what I asked. Since his preference was stronger than mine or I had none, I go with what makes him happy, as far as I know, and don't think about it.
- He grows resentful that I am not grateful he "sacrificed" himself "for" me.
- It comes up he would have preferred B. I ask him why the hell he picked A, then. He argues that he did so to please me and that I'm welcome. I get annoyed because I did not want him to pick A, I wanted him to make a decision that would make him happy, which he did not do.

I get annoyed, he extrapolates from the whole thing that he screwed up and needs to do better at guessing what I want him to do in the future.

Meanwhile, I feel extremely disrespected that he decided to make all these decisions involving me in his mind but not in real life, and then ends up resenting me for something I had nothing to do with. I also get frustrated that he could so easily have been happy but he created a problem where there was none.

Now. I'm not saying you're doing that. But by not voicing your opinions or preferences you're getting close. So keep in mind this type of situation. When people ask you for your opinion, generally it's not a trick, it's a legitimate question because they need that information in order to make their decision. Volunteering such information is also useful for similar reasons. Hiding them only makes you and your partner unhappy.

As for not being yourself, I do believe it's good to improve yourself for your partner, be a better version of yourself if you will. But that's not the same as misleading them about who they are. Do you realise how hurt and betrayed they would be if they realise that after all this time, that thing you guys did together and they thought you both loved, you actually hate and were bearing through it? The whole relationship would have been a lie. That sucks. Plus people are happier when their partners are happier.

Going back to being a better version of yourself. I think the most loving thing you can do, and the first thing you need to do, is take care of yourself so your partner doesn't have to. Make sure you're healthy. Take care of your own happiness. Don't put it on someone else's shoulders. Don't make it depend on them. That's a lot of pressure and a lot of drama, too. Go to the gym, study stuff. Improve yourself. When you improve yourself, they get to be with someone better, and not just someone they think is better, like when you mislead them, but someone who actually is.
And when your partner's happiness doesn't rely on you, you get the freedom to be with them because you want to, not because you feel you have to. You're not their caretaker or their "reason for living". You're their partner.

[Serpentine]

Oh, wait a second, I'm thinking of the "What do Girls want from a Guy physically" thread. An ongoing discussion has been happening there about "friendzoning" (ew ), and the point has been made, as usual for such discussions, that if all you can say about yourself is that you're "nice", you don't deserve a partner

Yeeeeahno. I never said anything about being "deserving". I said you're not offering anything that qualifies you for anything greater than an acquaintance, that merely being "nice" doesn't automatically make you, if you want to use that word, "deserve" someone's - or anyone's - affection. That is, there are people who seem to think that just being "nice" is enough to make them "deserve", if you must, a relationship, but it doesn't - not that the opposite is true, that if you're only nice then you specifically don't deserve it, just that you're not magically entitled to it. Got it?

I heard a while ago that the concept of "unconditional love" is a pretty Western idea, or at least not a universal one, and that some other cultures are more likely to use a concept of conditional love, love that is kept and maintain only if each side meets certain obligations. I personally don't think arguskos' approach is a healthy one - smacks of martyrdom and self-flagelation and needless self-denial as well as an insidious lack of communication and apparent inability to consider that maybe one's partner wants to do nice things for you, as well, in addition to everyone else's points - but it is an interesting case of more or less same-culture culture-clash.

[Amaril]

I seem to be stuck in "blunt" mode at the moment. But that is one of those pieces of advice I hear fairly frequently and find to be absolutely useless, because the real problem is finding that person (or one of those people). Moreover given that relationships inevitably involve a degree of compromise, it's the sort of thing that encourages people to blow off existing relationships which are otherwise perfectly good but have hit a rocky patch in favour of trying to find the mythical perfect partner, even if that's not what's actually meant.

You're right, of course--the sticking point of the principle is actually finding and identifying those people who find you attractive. However, I find that's much easier to do if you're able to keep in mind that, yes, they do exist, and you will almost certainly meet one of them sooner or later.

And yes, the thing about compromise is another important detail to keep in mind about the very general principle I was describing. Yes, you have to be yourself, but that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of striving to be the best self you can be, or of understanding that your partner may not always be able to do the same, since nobody always can.

I wonder at the idea of the single soulmate. I believe that Aedilred has summed up my objections better and faster than I could have. Well done, sir/madam/<preferred pronoun here>.

Not necessarily a single soulmate. For almost everybody, there's more than one person who will be attracted to them. I only said "at least one" to avoid quoting a more specific number, because you never know how many such people a given individual will encounter. I suppose it's possible, in theory, to go one's entire life without ever meeting anyone who genuinely finds them attractive, but given how many people one normally meets over the course of their life, this is pretty much impossible in practice.

A lovely sentiment, but somehow, it feels hollow. Perhaps it is my cynicism at work. Likely, that is all it is.

You're probably right about that. A little optimism rarely hurts things, as long as it's tempered by reality when necessary.

Why? Give a reason or do not claim it. I see no logic behind that statement. We have no inherent rights, as though they were properties of existence. Even the one inviolable right I ascribe to is a construct I have accepted to make life function.

Well, this isn't really something that can be supported or disproven with any objective evidence. It's all about what one chooses to believe about how the world works. For my part, I choose to believe that happiness is the God-given right of all sentient life, and it is our mission to create a universe where every being can have it. To believe this costs me nothing, it gives me motivation to try and make people's lives better, and it gives me hope that the problems of the world can be fixed. My only question is, if the difference between happiness and pain is the simple choice of whether to be optimistic or pessimistic, why would anyone choose the latter?

As for not being yourself, I do believe it's good to improve yourself for your partner, be a better version of yourself if you will. But that's not the same as misleading them about who they are. Do you realise how hurt and betrayed they would be if they realise that after all this time, that thing you guys did together and they thought you both loved, you actually hate and were bearing through it? The whole relationship would have been a lie. That sucks. Plus people are happier when their partners are happier.

This, this, a million times this.

Yeeeeahno. I never said anything about being "deserving". I said you're not offering anything that qualifies you for anything greater than an acquaintance, that merely being "nice" doesn't automatically make you, if you want to use that word, "deserve" someone's - or anyone's - affection. That is, there are people who seem to think that just being "nice" is enough to make them "deserve", if you must, a relationship, but it doesn't - not that the opposite is true, that if you're only nice then you specifically don't deserve it, just that you're not magically entitled to it. Got it?

Alright, then I misunderstood the point you were making, and I apologize. Besides, it was never my intention to disagree even if you were saying what I thought you were--I don't believe I ever implied that I was one of those people who couldn't say anything good about themselves besides being nice

[Terrador]

Heyo, everyone. You know that putz who mentioned parleying with the crazy dad earlier? Yup, it's me.

I was travelling from Portland, OR to Enterprise, AL--I was in Kentucky when she told me. I had known her dad found out about the trip a couple of days back, but she told me... ten hours ago now, maybe eleven, that she wasn't going to be with me anymore. That, as much as she loves me, we can't be together.

I'm in Birmingham, less than two hundred miles away, and I can't go to see her. Even if I showed up on her doorstep, she would not see me. I'm staying here for a couple of days at my parents' very strong recommendation, then returning home.

I'll never see her face, I'll never hold her hand, I'll never kiss her cheek and watch her eyes light up. We were together for one year, eight months, and twenty-eight days, and we both thought we would marry someday. But just like that, she broke under the strain, and I'm not a part of her life anymore. Just like that. If I talk to her again, that'll be on a scale of months, if not years, later. Any potential rekindling is way too far away for putting either of our social lives on hold to be healthy. I have to move on, and I know that'll be okay, but it isn't yet.

I've never dealt with a breakup before. Anyone have any gems of advice, here?

[arguskos]

Spoiler: Responses

Show

Have you looked into utilitarianism? Seems like a philosophy you would like that would also enable you to live more healthily.

Yes, but not terribly recently. I will get back to it. I actually have a Philosophy minor, but my focus was in phil of religion, so I have relatively little interaction with utilitarianism.

This has been addressed but I want to insist on this point. You are simply voicing what you would like. You may think "I keep it to myself in order not to be selfish". However, what may occur is that your partner doesn't get the opportunity to spend more time with you if they also want to, because they're not given the choice/option.
Yes, they could be the one to ask first and let you decide. But if you truly want your partners to be the one in charge of the decisions, you need to let them see their options.

Hmm. A highly convincing argument, actually. This bears a great deal of focus and exploration.

Right now, it seems that you expect to either disregard you completely (pretty unhealthy) or to read your mind so they can know what decisions to make. By not voicing your opinion, you're putting additional pressure on them to make decisions without having all the elements in hand.

And then it goes somewhat left-field. I do not think that keeping my (wrong) opinions to myself produces extra pressure on them. Instead, I see it as giving them total freedom. They may act as they wish and know that I will support and follow them no matter what.

On top of that, it sounds like you're close to doing something my ex did that ended up poorly for everyone involved: guessing what other people expect of you and sacrificing yourself doing it, without letting them know any of that.
In my former relationship, the following would happen a lot:

Sacrificing implies a martyr-type mindset, which I lack. But I see how you can get to that conclusion, based on my statements and the lack of vocal emphasis on the internet.

- A decision needs to be made. I ask my partner what he prefers between options A and B. I have no preference, or a small preference towards B.
- My partner assumes I would want him to pick A. His own preference, however, is B. He insists that he definitely wants A.
- I assume he picked what he preferred since that's what I asked. Since his preference was stronger than mine or I had none, I go with what makes him happy, as far as I know, and don't think about it.
- He grows resentful that I am not grateful he "sacrificed" himself "for" me.
- It comes up he would have preferred B. I ask him why the hell he picked A, then. He argues that he did so to please me and that I'm welcome. I get annoyed because I did not want him to pick A, I wanted him to make a decision that would make him happy, which he did not do.

I get annoyed, he extrapolates from the whole thing that he screwed up and needs to do better at guessing what I want him to do in the future.

Meanwhile, I feel extremely disrespected that he decided to make all these decisions involving me in his mind but not in real life, and then ends up resenting me for something I had nothing to do with. I also get frustrated that he could so easily have been happy but he created a problem where there was none.

This is an unfortunate situation, and you have my sympathies. I have been this person in the past and discovered that it was both not effective and not worth it. In this period of life, I do not do this, for incredibly obvious reasons. Instead, this is my plan of action:

-A decision needs be made. My partner asks me what I prefer.
-I, selfishly, slightly prefer A. However, I announce that I am ambivalent as to the outcome and am good with whatever they prefer.
-They choose as they wish, and I go along with it, because they enjoy the outcome.

That's it. I harbor no resentment, nor have I sacrificed anything. I made a choice: I chose to be ambivalent as to my opinion. Of course, the difficulty arises when neither of us has a strong opinion as to the outcome of the decision. In those cases, we either find another course of action to pursue or decide based on random chance.

Now. I'm not saying you're doing that. But by not voicing your opinions or preferences you're getting close. So keep in mind this type of situation. When people ask you for your opinion, generally it's not a trick, it's a legitimate question because they need that information in order to make their decision. Volunteering such information is also useful for similar reasons. Hiding them only makes you and your partner unhappy.

Though I am not your ex (I once was and am no more), I understand your intent here. You raise good points and begin on a very strong argument. There is much here to consider.

As for not being yourself, I do believe it's good to improve yourself for your partner, be a better version of yourself if you will. But that's not the same as misleading them about who they are. Do you realise how hurt and betrayed they would be if they realise that after all this time, that thing you guys did together and they thought you both loved, you actually hate and were bearing through it? The whole relationship would have been a lie. That sucks. Plus people are happier when their partners are happier.

You, and others, seem to be misunderstanding what I mean when I say that I adapt for my partners. Yes, I am willing to compromise on some aspects of myself, but I rarely change my entire character (which is arguably not possible). Instead, I change just enough to make them truly happy with me while also retaining enough of my core character that I am still recognizable as myself.

Perhaps that though is a lie as well. If so, the question becomes: is lying or selfishness the worse crime? To that, I have no clear answer.

Going back to being a better version of yourself. I think the most loving thing you can do, and the first thing you need to do, is take care of yourself so your partner doesn't have to. Make sure you're healthy. Take care of your own happiness. Don't put it on someone else's shoulders. Don't make it depend on them. That's a lot of pressure and a lot of drama, too. Go to the gym, study stuff. Improve yourself. When you improve yourself, they get to be with someone better, and not just someone they think is better, like when you mislead them, but someone who actually is.

My happiness, my health, my sanity, these are all my own problem and no one else's. I have never asked my partner to make me happy. They, incidentally, do on occasion make me happy, but they are never the sole source of my happiness. I don't know if that's the same as what you are expressing here, but I certainly think it is.

And when your partner's happiness doesn't rely on you, you get the freedom to be with them because you want to, not because you feel you have to. You're not their caretaker or their "reason for living". You're their partner.

Perhaps we are on the same page here. It seems we are, but I am just not sure.

Incidentally, this is one of the sources of my current relationship troubles (to return to my original post in this thread, for once). My current partner seems unable to attend to her own happiness, at all, and relies on her boyfriends (we're poly; she has 4 partners, I have 1) to make her happy. This is a stress that I am struggling to maintain. I do not wish to leave, but I can no longer healthily maintain this situation.

In other news: Thank you, Lissou, for your in-depth and well-considered response. You have given me much to consider. I begin to see that perhaps my current strategy is not optimally effective, thanks to you. I am well obliged to you.

Not necessarily a single soulmate. For almost everybody, there's more than one person who will be attracted to them. I only said "at least one" to avoid quoting a more specific number, because you never know how many such people a given individual will encounter. I suppose it's possible, in theory, to go one's entire life without ever meeting anyone who genuinely finds them attractive, but given how many people one normally meets over the course of their life, this is pretty much impossible in practice.

Ah, I see. Please accept my apologies for misreading.

You're probably right about that. A little optimism rarely hurts things, as long as it's tempered by reality when necessary.

Optimism also has the terrible side-effect of blinding us to bitter truths. I tend to accept simple realism in its place, for realism leads neither to false hope nor crushing despair. It merely leads to a clear view of life.

Well, this isn't really something that can be supported or disproven with any objective evidence. It's all about what one chooses to believe about how the world works. For my part, I choose to believe that happiness is the God-given right of all sentient life, and it is our mission to create a universe where every being can have it. To believe this costs me nothing, it gives me motivation to try and make people's lives better, and it gives me hope that the problems of the world can be fixed. My only question is, if the difference between happiness and pain is the simple choice of whether to be optimistic or pessimistic, why would anyone choose the latter?

There is a third choice: realistic. As said above, realism leads neither to hope nor despair, merely a clear way of seeing. It often turns to pessimism, this is true, but with focus, discipline, and a rigid will, realism is a fine way to look at the world.

(As an aside: I just realized that my last response above is edging somewhat close to preaching in favor of a way of life. I apologize for that. It is not my intent. Please, undertake no actions as a result of my words unless you, independently and with much thought and contemplation, come to the conclusion that the ideas here espoused are worthy of your action.

[Jallorn]

Optimism also has the terrible side-effect of blinding us to bitter truths. I tend to accept simple realism in its place, for realism leads neither to false hope nor crushing despair. It merely leads to a clear view of life.


There is a third choice: realistic. As said above, realism leads neither to hope nor despair, merely a clear way of seeing. It often turns to pessimism, this is true, but with focus, discipline, and a rigid will, realism is a fine way to look at the world.

I would argue that there is a difference between Optimism and Idealism, which, I would also argue, is what you describe optimism as. I have found, and perhaps not entirely fairly I admit, given my privelege in life, that optimism, or quite simply, focusing on the positives of a situation, leads one to be happier. For me, optimism mostly isn't about expectations, so much as what I take from the experiences I have. I acknowledge the negative, then let them go, but hold onto the good. Idealism is, again, for me, the belief that one can solve all the problems of the world if only x, y, and/or z. Idealists approach the future with certainty of good outcomes. I approach the future with certainty of happiness, not because I expect good things to happen to me, but because I intend to draw the good out of what comes.

Certainly there's a touch of realism, and a fun dash of cynicism in there as well: I have little expectations of others save that I desire them to rise to my challenge because I care about them or they have proven themselves worthy of such expectations. Similarly, I am alert, generally, for things to go wrong. I don't, however, invite disaster as so many pessimists I've known seem to.

[Amaril]

You, and others, seem to be misunderstanding what I mean when I say that I adapt for my partners. Yes, I am willing to compromise on some aspects of myself, but I rarely change my entire character (which is arguably not possible). Instead, I change just enough to make them truly happy with me while also retaining enough of my core character that I am still recognizable as myself.

Perhaps that though is a lie as well. If so, the question becomes: is lying or selfishness the worse crime? To that, I have no clear answer.

See, you're absolutely right about compromise and self-improvement being important. I just feel you're sort of misunderstanding what that means. I would argue that it's not a matter of changing the personality traits you exhibit for the sake of making someone else happy; rather, the goal is to figure out the positive qualities you already possess and try to act on those as much as possible, rather than acting in accordance with your negative traits. This is something that everyone should always be trying to do, regardless of whether they're trying to impress anyone in particular. But the point is that even if you're showing the best side of yourself every time it counts, not everyone will find that attractive, because the positive qualities you have, while no less valuable, aren't the ones they need in a partner (or, alternatively, your particular negative qualities are ones they can't deal with, while someone else might be able to). Focus on showing the best parts of your personality whenever you can, and you'll attract the people you should be with. The problems come when one tries to impress people who are looking for qualities that one doesn't naturally have in them to express; to impress such people requires disingenuous behavior, which harms everyone involved.

Ah, I see. Please accept my apologies for misreading.

You didn't misread--I wasn't being as clear as I could have. The apology is mine

Optimism also has the terrible side-effect of blinding us to bitter truths. I tend to accept simple realism in its place, for realism leads neither to false hope nor crushing despair. It merely leads to a clear view of life.

There is a third choice: realistic. As said above, realism leads neither to hope nor despair, merely a clear way of seeing. It often turns to pessimism, this is true, but with focus, discipline, and a rigid will, realism is a fine way to look at the world.

If humans were capable of being perfectly rational and realistic about things, I might agree on this. But the truth is, we aren't--no human in history has ever seen the absolute truth of anything, uncolored by emotion or bias. And since my personal reality must be biased, I choose to bias it in a way that gives me hope and helps me to bring happiness to others. That's just my choice; you're free to see the world however you choose.

[sktarq]

Heyo, everyone...I've never dealt with a breakup before. Anyone have any gems of advice, here?

That sucks hirsute donkey socks. Well don't let it dominate you life. We all say get busy, but take your time to deal with your emotions too. Be social as you can. Don't stay in Alabama where your thoughts will be dominated by the fact she was supposed to be next to you. Have fun in non-romantic ways-active stuff that gets your blood going.

[Coidzor]

Doesn't it strike you as somewhat contradictory to give that advice, though, given that much of this thread recently has been devoted to discussing how many people's relationship problems stem from them not being worthy of affection because of who they are?

No. The context is quite different. It's one thing to not be interesting enough to attract and hold someone's interest long enough to go on a date.

It's another thing to feel like one has to buy affection EVEN INSIDE A COMMITTED, LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP.

Granted, part of arguskos's problem is that it seems like he's fallen into the trap of thinking that just because she's poly she's committed to him. When, at least in his words, the report of the situation is that she's not really committed to him or invested him him, which is probably exacerbating the need to compete for her affections and attention by giving her things and being extra nice to her above those of his competitors.

Which, I'm not poly and am not an expert on such things, but from what I do recall, that's a bad dynamic and generally considered a bit of a no-no in the polyamorous community. Would need to run it by someone who knew better to be sure, but it's enough of a sketchy thing that I think it's worth double checking.

Oh, wait a second, I'm thinking of the "What do Girls want from a Guy physically" thread. An ongoing discussion has been happening there about "friendzoning" (ew ), and the point has been made, as usual for such discussions, that if all you can say about yourself is that you're "nice", you don't deserve a partner.

Anyway, if I may, I want to take a stab at explaining to arguskos what people mean when they say you don't need to earn love. See, in a certain way, you do--you earn a person's love and affection by being someone they want to give it to. The thing is, though, that everyone has different criteria for determining who such people are for them. The reason people say things like "just be yourself" is because, while earning someone's trust, for example, is something almost anyone can do while staying true to themselves, there is no-one alive who can meet everyone's criteria for who deserves their love. So, the whole idea is that instead of trying to earn the love of people whose criteria you don't already meet, you should seek out people who already see you as deserving of their love for who you are naturally--because unless you're a complete monster (and even then, in many cases), there will always be at least one such person out there.

Well, in that context "nice" is basically "milquetoast" or "bland." Which is more a about needing to have passions, drives, desires, and notable personality features, preferably positive traits and endearing quirks rather than flaws and negative quirks.

That's pretty nail on the head, yeah. If ya adopt an unnatural, painful posture to fit into someone else's box that doesn't allow room for you or for growth, you're gonna be in for a bad time once the mask falls off or you start to grow and you bust their box.

[Amaril]

Well, in that context "nice" is basically "milquetoast" or "bland." Which is more a about needing to have passions, drives, desires, and notable personality features, preferably positive traits and endearing quirks rather than flaws and negative quirks.

Huh...are people like that really in any way common? Because I've only met one that I can think of, and although he's perfectly pleasant and polite to everyone, he sort of creeps me out. It wouldn't occur to me that there were enough of those sorts of people to make this issue as prevalent as it seems, is all.

[arguskos]

Spoiler: Responses

Show

I would argue that there is a difference between Optimism and Idealism, which, I would also argue, is what you describe optimism as. I have found, and perhaps not entirely fairly I admit, given my privelege in life, that optimism, or quite simply, focusing on the positives of a situation, leads one to be happier. For me, optimism mostly isn't about expectations, so much as what I take from the experiences I have. I acknowledge the negative, then let them go, but hold onto the good. Idealism is, again, for me, the belief that one can solve all the problems of the world if only x, y, and/or z. Idealists approach the future with certainty of good outcomes. I approach the future with certainty of happiness, not because I expect good things to happen to me, but because I intend to draw the good out of what comes.

Hrm. An interesting perspective. You are correct, I usually view optimism as what you describe as idealism, for those are the terms it has been presented to me under.

To rephrase your definitions: optimism is finding the silver lining in all things, while idealism is expecting only silver linings. Is that accurate?

Certainly there's a touch of realism, and a fun dash of cynicism in there as well: I have little expectations of others save that I desire them to rise to my challenge because I care about them or they have proven themselves worthy of such expectations. Similarly, I am alert, generally, for things to go wrong. I don't, however, invite disaster as so many pessimists I've known seem to.

This feels similar to my position, save that I expect nothing good nor bad to happen, merely events that must be responded to.

See, you're absolutely right about compromise and self-improvement being important. I just feel you're sort of misunderstanding what that means. I would argue that it's not a matter of changing the personality traits you exhibit for the sake of making someone else happy; rather, the goal is to figure out the positive qualities you already possess and try to act on those as much as possible, rather than acting in accordance with your negative traits. This is something that everyone should always be trying to do, regardless of whether they're trying to impress anyone in particular. But the point is that even if you're showing the best side of yourself every time it counts, not everyone will find that attractive, because the positive qualities you have, while no less valuable, aren't the ones they need in a partner (or, alternatively, your particular negative qualities are ones they can't deal with, while someone else might be able to). Focus on showing the best parts of your personality whenever you can, and you'll attract the people you should be with. The problems come when one tries to impress people who are looking for qualities that one doesn't naturally have in them to express; to impress such people requires disingenuous behavior, which harms everyone involved.

I have a difficulty with this paragraph. In it, you say two things that are directly in conflict, which is troubling me.

First, you begin with saying to focus on one's positive qualities. This is easily agreed with on my part. Positive qualities are good.

Then, you say that each individual will find different qualities of yours to be positive ones. This is also easy to agree with.

The problem is this: how can I focus on my positive qualities when they keep changing based on who I'm with? It feels like these two statements clash. This clash leads me to my original position: change my qualities based on who I'm with, thus focusing on what they find positive in me.

You didn't misread--I wasn't being as clear as I could have. The apology is mine

Either way, things are now clearer.

If humans were capable of being perfectly rational and realistic about things, I might agree on this. But the truth is, we aren't--no human in history has ever seen the absolute truth of anything, uncolored by emotion or bias. And since my personal reality must be biased, I choose to bias it in a way that gives me hope and helps me to bring happiness to others. That's just my choice; you're free to see the world however you choose.

I believe we have that ability, but it is merely difficult to achieve, perhaps nigh-impossible. I endeavor to reach it. Perhaps I will always fall short, but I must try regardless.

[Jallorn]

Hrm. An interesting perspective. You are correct, I usually view optimism as what you describe as idealism, for those are the terms it has been presented to me under.

To rephrase your definitions: optimism is finding the silver lining in all things, while idealism is expecting only silver linings. Is that accurate?

I believe that is an adequate summation, yes.

[arguskos]

It's another thing to feel like one has to buy affection EVEN INSIDE A COMMITTED, LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP.

Granted, part of Arguskos's problem is that it seems like he's fallen into the trap of thinking that just because she's poly she's committed to him. When, at least in his words, the report of the situation is that she's not really committed to him or invested him him, which is probably exacerbating the need to compete for her affections and attention by giving her things and being extra nice to her above those of his competitors.

Which, I'm not poly and am not an expert on such things, but from what I do recall, that's a bad dynamic and generally considered a bit of a no-no in the polyamorous community. Would need to run it by someone who knew better to be sure, but it's enough of a sketchy thing that I think it's worth double checking.

Two things, off the bat. First, please, when making comments about me, please direct them at me. I'm a big boy, I can take some criticism. Second, and this is super nitpicky, but my name is arguskos, not Arguskos. Yes, yes, it's nitpicky, but I wouldn't refer to you as coidzor, since it's not what your name says.

Anyway, to your comment, I have fallen into no trap. Poly relationships are relationships like any other. We do commit to each other. The only difference is that we do not commit exclusively to each other. Further, I neither give my partner extra things nor am I especially kind to her above and beyond the norm in order to "purchase" her affections. I am somewhat bothered by your assumption of my behavior, but it is understandable. I have not given extreme amounts of detail on the nature of our relationship, so you have no basis to work from.

And yes, my problem is partially that she doesn't invest in my life. That is accurate on your part.

[Amaril]

I have a difficulty with this paragraph. In it, you say two things that are directly in conflict, which is troubling me.

First, you begin with saying to focus on one's positive qualities. This is easily agreed with on my part. Positive qualities are good.

Then, you say that each individual will find different qualities of yours to be positive ones. This is also easy to agree with.

The problem is this: how can I focus on my positive qualities when they keep changing based on who I'm with? It feels like these two statements clash. This clash leads me to my original position: change my qualities based on who I'm with, thus focusing on what they find positive in me.

It's not so much that everyone will find different qualities positive (at least, not in the sense that I meant positive qualities). It's more that everyone considers different positive qualities to be the most important. For example, let's say you're an extremely sensitive person, who cares about how others feel and doesn't want them to be upset. Another person might have the positive quality of being extremely intelligent and articulate. Both these qualities are positive, and it'd be hard to find someone who would deny that. However, a particular prospective partner will prioritize them in their own way. Maybe they want someone sensitive, but don't particularly care about having someone who's intelligent.
Everyone will have different such qualities in different combinations. One can't change which ones they possess, and trying to pretend otherwise leads to problems. The people who feel you deserve their love and affection will be the ones who consider your particular qualities the most important in a partner; that doesn't mean that anyone else's are less valuable.

Am I making this clearer now?

[Coidzor]

Two things, off the bat. First, please, when making comments about me, please direct them at me. I'm a big boy, I can take some criticism. Second, and this is super nitpicky, but my name is arguskos, not Arguskos. Yes, yes, it's nitpicky, but I wouldn't refer to you as coidzor, since it's not what your name says.

Anyway, to your comment, I have fallen into no trap. Poly relationships are relationships like any other. We do commit to each other. The only difference is that we do not commit exclusively to each other. Further, I neither give my partner extra things nor am I especially kind to her above and beyond the norm in order to "purchase" her affections. I am somewhat bothered by your assumption of my behavior, but it is understandable. I have not given extreme amounts of detail on the nature of our relationship, so you have no basis to work from.

And yes, my problem is partially that she doesn't invest in my life. That is accurate on your part.

Yeah, that was poorly done of me, sorry. I need to work on those sorts of segues anyway, it seems. x.x Capitalization corrected.

It was a combination of her apparent neglect and your feeling a need to have to earn attention and affection from your partner on an ongoing basis. It seems that it was a false conflation, sorry. I'm glad to hear that she hasn't been exploiting or worsening that belief and that the polyamorous aspect of the relationship, at least, is healthy, even if the connection between the two of you does not seem to be.

[arguskos]

Yeah, that was poorly done of me, sorry. I need to work on those sorts of segues anyway, it seems. x.x Capitalization corrected.

It's quite fine. Thank you. :)

It was a combination of her apparent neglect and your feeling a need to have to earn attention and affection from your partner on an ongoing basis. It seems that it was a false conflation, sorry. I'm glad to hear that she hasn't been exploiting or worsening that belief and that the polyamorous aspect of the relationship, at least, is healthy, even if the connection between the two of you does not seem to be.

Again, quite fine. You aren't me (that I or you know of...) so you have insufficient data on my life to do anything beyond take guesses. It happens. I'm not upset, just trying to clarify things.

As for our relationship health, yes, the poly aspect is totally fine. Our personal connection? Somewhat less so.

Amaril: I'll respond to you later. I dislike doing so, but I'm wiped from a long day of errands and physical labor and need to relax with something non-stressful.

[Serpentine]

Huh...are people like that really in any way common? Because I've only met one that I can think of, and although he's perfectly pleasant and polite to everyone, he sort of creeps me out. It wouldn't occur to me that there were enough of those sorts of people to make this issue as prevalent as it seems, is all.

That's actually a significant part of my point about just being "nice" isn't enough: I don't believe there are any people for whom that is their only notable trait, or at least I think they're few and not beyond salvage. When someone says "but I'm NICE, and he's a JERK, why is she going out with him and not me?", I believe they are doing both themselves and the other person a grave disservice: you (this hypothetical "you") is more than just "nice", but how do you show that to the people around you if you won't even acknowledge it yourself? And he is more than just a "jerk", and is clearly able to advertise that fact.

[Amaril]

That's actually a significant part of my point about just being "nice" isn't enough: I don't believe there are any people for whom that is their only notable trait, or at least I think they're few and not beyond salvage. When someone says "but I'm NICE, and he's a JERK, why is she going out with him and not me?", I believe they are doing both themselves and the other person a grave disservice: you (this hypothetical "you") is more than just "nice", but how do you show that to the people around you if you won't even acknowledge it yourself? And he is more than just a "jerk", and is clearly able to advertise that fact.

Okay, I think that's a valuable clarification. And you're right, I do this acquaintance of mine a disservice by calling him bland; according to some hearsay (the worth of which is extremely dubious, but it's there nonetheless), he comports himself the way he does to deal with a difficult home life, and I don't really know him all that well anyway. It's just that I see the claim about niceness alone not being enough made so often that I wouldn't have really expected many of its supporters to understand what you've just made clear.

Anyway, we should stop this here, before the two threads start to merge