For a Successful Relationship....

[slyc_willie]

Where were all you guys when I was single?

*sigh*

 

[cloudy]

I'm not kidding. Every serious relationship I've been in starts out wonderfully, but somewhere along the line they stop looking at me as a person, and start considering me as just something else they own, like their car, or maybe even as evolved as a pet. They start issuing "cans" and "can'ts" and when that happens, I lose respect for them, too.

Not that I have any intention of following orders, of course, but why do they feel the need to give them?

 

[slyc_willie]

I'm not kidding. Every serious relationship I've been in starts out wonderfully, but somewhere along the line they stop looking at me as a person, and start considering me as just something else they own, like their car, or maybe even as evolved as a pet. They start issuing "cans" and "can'ts" and when that happens, I lose respect for them, too.

Not that I have any intention of following orders, of course, but why do they feel the need to give them?

Many men are like that. It's a mixture of upbringing, peer influences, and the natural tendency of men to 'own' things.

When I was growing up, my mother was the most docile creature on the planet. Everything my father did or said was as the Gospel to her. Only when I was a teenager did I find out that my dad was a womanizing bastard and my mother an incurable alcoholic.

Because of that, I've always treated women in the opposite manner as my father: as equals.

 

[cloudy]

Many men are like that. It's a mixture of upbringing, peer influences, and the natural tendency of men to 'own' things.

When I was growing up, my mother was the most docile creature on the planet. Everything my father did or said was as the Gospel to her. Only when I was a teenager did I find out that my dad was a womanizing bastard and my mother an incurable alcoholic.

Because of that, I've always treated women in the opposite manner as my father: as equals.

Its funny, too, because they just don't get it; none of them ever have. If you say to me "I'd rather you didn't," well...most likely I won't, unless it was something I absolutely had my heart set on doing, and then I'd explain that.

However, if you tell me "you can't," I'll do it or die trying, just to show you that I can, even if I didn't really want to to begin with.

 

[slyc_willie]

Its funny, too, because they just don't get it; none of them ever have. If you say to me "I'd rather you didn't," well...most likely I won't, unless it was something I absolutely had my heart set on doing, and then I'd explain that.

However, if you tell me "you can't," I'll do it or die trying, just to show you that I can, even if I didn't really want to to begin with.

At the same time, my view on how treat women sometimes makes me a pushover. The wrong kind of woman can come along and tell me what I want to hear, then twist me around her finger.

But I never let it last. I'm not stupid, after all

 

[SeaCat]

Many men are like that. It's a mixture of upbringing, peer influences, and the natural tendency of men to 'own' things.

When I was growing up, my mother was the most docile creature on the planet. Everything my father did or said was as the Gospel to her. Only when I was a teenager did I find out that my dad was a womanizing bastard and my mother an incurable alcoholic.

Because of that, I've always treated women in the opposite manner as my father: as equals.

LOLOLOL

Your father and my mother would never care to meet. Think the unstoppable object and the immovable object.

My mother has always considered herself her own person. She is strong, she is intelligent and she is stubborn as a damned mule. She backs down from no one. (I saw her put a load of buckshot in a guy who thought he could rob her.)

They created their own rules. I know they played around, hell I know who they have played with. They have their views on many things, sexuality and nudity among them.

They play fast and loose with many of the rules our society seems intent on forcing on everyone. Yet they also have some rules they don't break or bend. They pounded these into me as I grew up. (You thnk I'm kidding right?)

My wife is my equal, no questions asked. She walks beside me. I am honest with her in all things, as she is with me. We talk about things, both of us. There are no secrets.

It took my wife a long time to get used to this but now she wouldn't have it any different.

Cat

 

[WRJames]

I've been married for almost 36 years, and I'm not particularly comfortable with what this article is saying.

Beyond the chemistry of passion and romance, at the intersection of feeling and understanding, lies the hope of happily ever after. Researchers call this state companionate love -- the kind of love people feel after years of arguments, joy, tragedies and successes mutually felt. To arrive there, couples have to get on the road to success pretty quickly.

If we are talking about marriage, there should be the expectation that you are trying to get to "ever after." Of course, no one can guarantee the happily part.

• Couples who stay together kid themselves a bit. For example, they typically underestimate their partners' interest in others. "If you show people pictures of attractive men and women and ask how their partner will look at this person, they underestimate the person's attractiveness to their partner," says Gian Gonzaga, senior research scientist at eHarmony Labs. "It turns out that's actually good because we're not constantly worrying and obsessing."

If both partners stay faithful, how do you know if they are kidding themselves?

• Long-term couples don't update their images of each other. "People stick with their initial view," Gonzaga says. "As people get older, they get less attractive, but we don't update." It's why Katharine Hepburn's character in "On Golden Pond" could look at the aging, crabby character played by Henry Fonda and declare: "He's my knight in shining armor."

My wife and I are both rather aware of what we (and the other) look like in our somewhat aged condition -- but we also fight that deterioration as much as we can.

• Those who endure have a story, and they stick to it. Robert Sternberg, dean of the school of arts and science at Tufts University, has researched this and has come up with about two dozen relationship stories, some good, some bad. The "fairy tale story" has a prince and a princess; the "visionist story" is a business model, accumulating homes, goods and successful children; the "travel story" says that life is a journey; the "police story" divides the partners' roles into cop and perp, with the former constantly monitoring the latter; the "war story" means that two people expect constant fights. "What our research shows is that couples tend to be more satisfied if they have matching story profiles," Sternberg says. Pair a fairy tale believer with a war story believer and "it won't work," he says.

I don't relate to this at all. Certainly having a nice home and successful children was the last thing on our minds when we got married -- but we did those things and found them very satisfying.

The best predictor of divorce, Aron says, has little to do with love, even less to do with initial attraction. It has to do with the availability of other options. If people are happy, other options are less appealing and they're more likely to stay married. If they're unhappy but can't imagine an alternative that isn't even worse, again, they'll stay married. (This is the probable reason many abused women stay in their relationships.)

I suppose this is based on experience, but what a sad thing to say. I guess if your only motive in life is maximum self gratification, this is the logical consequence.

 

[3113]

I think you misunderstand. The article is simply offering "tips" that it got from relationships that lasted. Marriage is irrelevant--the couples *stayed together* and if you met some of these couples you may or may not have wanted the kind of relationship they had--but the relationship was successfully (we assume that as meaning moderately satisfactory to both parties) long-term. That was the only requirement.

If both partners stay faithful, how do you know if they are kidding themselves?

You know because you, presumably, did the research. You ask the guy if he finds a picture of a girl attractive and he says, "Hubba-hubba! Yah, baby!" And then you show it to the female partner and say, "would hubbie find this girl attractive?" and she says, "Not really...." And vice versa. You do this with a lot of couples who have stuck together. You find that, on average, they "kid" themselves a little. Not a lot, just a little.

Why is this so difficult to believe or understand?

My wife and I are both rather aware of what we (and the other) look like in our somewhat aged condition -- but we also fight that deterioration as much as we can.

This has nothing to do with hiding from the reality of aging or fighting/not fighting deterioration. Again, you've missed the point. When the article says that couples don't "update" it doesn't mean that you don't see their wrinkles; it means that what you saw in them at first--the twinkle in their eyes, their bright smile, the fact that they were your knight in shining armor or your princess, remains. And the age lines don't change that. You don't suddenly say, "Well, thanks to the age lines, I no longer see that twinkle" or "thanks to his gray hair he's no longer my knight in shining armor." You don't update the princess to a "Queen Mother" or the Knight to a "retired guy in rusty armor." They remain as they were when you first fell in love (or like).

That's all it means. Rather like your children remain your babies even when they reach adulthood. It doesn't mean you still see them in diapers, but you still feel protective and parental towards them.

I don't relate to this at all. Certainly having a nice home and successful children was the last thing on our minds when we got married -- but we did those things and found them very satisfying.

Did you read the entire paragraph? Let me quote it to you again:

• Those who endure have a story, and they stick to it....some good, some bad. The "fairy tale story" has a prince and a princess; the "visionist story" is a business model, accumulating homes, goods and successful children; the "travel story" says that life is a journey; the "police story" divides the partners' roles into cop and perp, with the former constantly monitoring the latter; the "war story" means that two people expect constant fights. "What our research shows is that couples tend to be more satisfied if they have matching story profiles," Sternberg says. Pair a fairy tale believer with a war story believer and "it won't work," he says.

What this means is that each couple shares *a story.* OBVIOUSLY, you and your wife DID NOT share the "visionist" story of kids, etc. But gosh, darn whadda know? Some couples DO. Some men and women have that desire for accumulating homes, goods and successful kids when they marry. Others share the "fairy tale" story instead, and others the "travel story...." This guy found some two dozen stories and only five are mentioned here. Your story may not have been mentioned. But that's not the point. The point is that *successful* couples are ones where both partners share the same story whatever that story may be. I don't know what you and your wife's story is, but it's a good bet that you agree on it. If she had had the "visionary" story in mind when she married you, and you didn't, then the article postulates that the marriage wouldn't have worked out. As neither of you had that story in mind when you married--you had some other story--it did work out.

It's actually pretty simple. A guy who envisions a marriage (a story) where he and his wife are swingers in the big city should not marry a woman who envisions a marriage (a story) of a monogamous partnership in an isolated little cabin in the mountains. They should find partners who share their "story" or vision of how they want their relationship to be, yes?

Take note that this list has NOTHING to do with each couple's personal rules for keeping together. That's between you and your partner. These are general tips gleaned from research that says what long-term couples usually have in common. So, honesty and communication may be really important to you and your partner--without it you two won't stay together. But I promise you, there's another couple out there that won't stay together if they're honest. They lie to each other in order to stay together. But both the honesty couple and the lying couple likely share these qualities. Like the one where both partners agree on the "story" of their marriage whatever that story may be. That's all the article is saying. Couples that have satisfactory, long-term relationships usually have these qualities.

 

[impressive]

Similarly, my wife and I had once figured out how to have the 'perfect' relationship (subjectively speaking). it comes down to three things:

Fidelity
Honesty
Communication

I've always thought about having those words tattooed somewhere . . .

I would add "respect" to the list -- the ability to agree to disagree, to value your partner's point of view without being driven to change it. The healthiest relationships I've ever witnessed were those in which differences were accepted (and sometimes even celebrated) instead of being contentious.

"Fidelity" (to me) is not a monogamy issue, but one of honor. IOW, honor your promises -- whatever they may be & however they were made (whether before a priest or in the sanctity of your bedroom).

 

[Adi87]

Well shit then I just have multiple personalities cos I fit in most to some degree.

Well, I'm with you on this one...

I always thought that relationships have too many factors to count.
I don't know if what I have thought till date is correct but it has worked for me perfectly.
You can't plan a relationship neither can you categorize it.

 

[3113]

I would add "respect" to the list -- the ability to agree to disagree, to value your partner's point of view without being driven to change it. The healthiest relationships I've ever witnessed were those in which differences were accepted (and sometimes even celebrated) instead of being contentious.

But once again, I'd like to point out that these elements are personal, relationship elements. What both partners agree is required to, as you say, keep the relationship healthy. It's all very well to list these things--but the article, surprisingly enough, did not find them as common elements in couples that had lasting relationships. Respect or honor or fidelity (even as you define it) wasn't one of those things that all these long lasting relationships had in common.

We tend to agree on this forum, and we may well be right as marriage councilors about what makes for a healthy marriage...but people are people and people are strange. And there are men and women out there who don't care about such things. There are men and women, for example, who can't be in a relationship where their spouse *is* different or who disagrees with them. They break up with people who disagree with them. And end up in a long-term relationship with someone who shares their values and views and interests almost exactly--or who they can change to share their values and views and interests almost exactly. You may find this awful, but it's simply the truth.

My husband and I have a friend. At one point he was dating a girl we thought was *terrific*. She was smart, funny, honest, social, pretty, undemanding--and she loved this guy to death and would have done anything for him. He dumped her and married someone we really don't much like. She's insecure, demanding, anti-social. She *screams* demeaning things at this guy. Yet they're happily married. Why? Well, looking at this list gives me a good idea. See, my friend is one of those "visionary" guys. He has always had his future all planned: get good paying job, marry, get house, have kids. Now girl #1, great as she was, had a low-paying job and was aiming for creative success, not financial success. Girl #2, however, works at a modest job for good money. Putting it another way, she shares our guy's "visionary" dream--home, things, successful kids--not, as with girl #1, creative success. Girl #2 is also anti-social and lacks self-confidence. She doesn't put herself out there in pretty dresses; that means our guy doesn't have to worry about losing her to other guys (that hits two of the points on the list, doesn't it?).

The fact that she throws temper tantrums and makes huge demands on him doesn't seem to matter. Now...maybe it will in the future and the marriage won't last, but right now it's amazingly stable. It's not one that I'd ever be in, nor one that you'd ever be in, but these two find it works and maybe it will last simply because it shares those other points.

What matters between individuals, and what matters in general for a long lasting relationship are two different things.

 

[WRJames]

I think you misunderstand. The article is simply offering "tips" that it got from relationships that lasted. Marriage is irrelevant--the couples *stayed together* and if you met some of these couples you may or may not have wanted the kind of relationship they had--but the relationship was successfully (we assume that as meaning moderately satisfactory to both parties) long-term. That was the only requirement.

Well, since the article talks about divorce rates, I assume it is talking primarily about marriage, or an equivilent relationship -- one that is supposed ot last for a lifetime.

You know because you, presumably, did the research. You ask the guy if he finds a picture of a girl attractive and he says, "Hubba-hubba! Yah, baby!" And then you show it to the female partner and say, "would hubbie find this girl attractive?" and she says, "Not really...." And vice versa. You do this with a lot of couples who have stuck together. You find that, on average, they "kid" themselves a little. Not a lot, just a little.

Oh come on -- that's so superficial it makes no sense. Attraction would have to mean something serious enough that it could endanger a relationship, or you are just measuring meaningless buzz.

This has nothing to do with hiding from the reality of aging or fighting/not fighting deterioration. Again, you've missed the point. When the article says that couples don't "update" it doesn't mean that you don't see their wrinkles; it means that what you saw in them at first--the twinkle in their eyes, their bright smile, the fact that they were your knight in shining armor or your princess, remains. And the age lines don't change that. You don't suddenly say, "Well, thanks to the age lines, I no longer see that twinkle" or "thanks to his gray hair he's no longer my knight in shining armor." You don't update the princess to a "Queen Mother" or the Knight to a "retired guy in rusty armor." They remain as they were when you first fell in love (or like).

That's all it means. Rather like your children remain your babies even when they reach adulthood. It doesn't mean you still see them in diapers, but you still feel protective and parental towards them.

Well, my personal reaction is that it does not ring true for me. What else can I tell you?

What this means is that each couple shares *a story.* OBVIOUSLY, you and your wife DID NOT share the "visionist" story of kids, etc. But gosh, darn whadda know? Some couples DO. Some men and women have that desire for accumulating homes, goods and successful kids when they marry. Others share the "fairy tale" story instead, and others the "travel story...." This guy found some two dozen stories and only five are mentioned here. Your story may not have been mentioned. But that's not the point. The point is that *successful* couples are ones where both partners share the same story whatever that story may be. I don't know what you and your wife's story is, but it's a good bet that you agree on it. If she had had the "visionary" story in mind when she married you, and you didn't, then the article postulates that the marriage wouldn't have worked out. As neither of you had that story in mind when you married--you had some other story--it did work out.

It's actually pretty simple. A guy who envisions a marriage (a story) where he and his wife are swingers in the big city should not marry a woman who envisions a marriage (a story) of a monogamous partnership in an isolated little cabin in the mountains. They should find partners who share their "story" or vision of how they want their relationship to be, yes?

Again, this goes completely against my own personal experience. Those of us who have followed the general Boomer mutation from hippies to yuppies to whatever can attest that we changed stories a lot over time.

Take note that this list has NOTHING to do with each couple's personal rules for keeping together. That's between you and your partner. These are general tips gleaned from research that says what long-term couples usually have in common. So, honesty and communication may be really important to you and your partner--without it you two won't stay together. But I promise you, there's another couple out there that won't stay together if they're honest. They lie to each other in order to stay together. But both the honesty couple and the lying couple likely share these qualities. Like the one where both partners agree on the "story" of their marriage whatever that story may be. That's all the article is saying. Couples that have satisfactory, long-term relationships usually have these qualities.

Could be -- but based on the experience of my own marriage, I don't see any of these patterns as being present or particularly significant. There was no "AHA" -- just "WTF?"

 

[3113]

Oh come on -- that's so superficial it makes no sense. Attraction would have to mean something serious enough that it could endanger a relationship, or you are just measuring meaningless buzz.

And, once again, you miss the point. Didn't you ever see that awful Kubrick film "Eyes Wide Shut"? A wife tells her husband about one moment where she lusted after another man and he has a nervous breakdown. I remember having a long argument with a guy about how unbelievable this was--turned out, it wasn't at all unbelievable to HIM. He understood exactly how a man might feel threatened by such a confession from his wife (I still have trouble believing it, by the way, but it pushed a real button with this guy).

I was astonished. But turns out, there are a lot of people like that out there. They need to "kid" themselves into believing that their partners find no one else attractive. Because if they think their partner finds someone else attractive, their insecurities will overcome their good sense. In other words, this isn't about attraction that's dangerous enough to endanger a relationship. It's about attraction that makes one of the partners feel insecure and obsessed about losing the other.

Now, in your marriage you may have very little insecurity. But I've met women who go ballistic if their guy even glances at another woman. I mean, talk about superficial; if they knew their guy said "hubba hubba" over a photo of another woman they'd be a basket case. These sort of people exist--they are THAT insecure. There's no danger of the guy leaving them for another woman, but to know that he found even a picture of another woman attractive puts them in the fear zone.

On the other hand, I've met women who will let their husbands flirt outrageously with women, shrugging their shoulders and saying there's nothing to worry about--even though I haven't been so sure of that. Which means that the "kidding" factor is a sliding scale. Take the guy I mentioned; he has a VERY low threshold. Which is why he dumped Girl #1. She was pretty, and she talked easily with a lot of other guys; now she would have never left our guy, but she's a social girl and she had plenty of male friends. And this made our guy insecure. He could not "kid" himself into believing that she was going to stay with him. So he dumped her and went for girl #2, who has NO guy friends and is anti-social; our guy doesn't have to work so hard to "kid" himself into believing that she finds only him attractive. It's easier for him to believe that she's never leave him for another guy.

The important thing is to *believe* that the other person is not going to to leave you. And a for a lot of people, that takes a little "kidding"--they have to lie to their insecurities and say, "he/she's doesn't find anyone else attractive, just me..." Because to admit otherwise might turn them into a jealous monster and ruin the relationship.

Again, I ask...why is this so hard to understand or believe?

Well, my personal reaction is that it does not ring true for me. What else can I tell you?

So there's nothing about your wife that you fell in love with when you married her and still love about her now? That, to you, is just the same? That is unusual. My personal experience just the opposite. Feeling that my husband was and still is my "knight in shining armor" rings wonderfully true to me. He was my hero when I meet him, and I've never "updated him" to anything less, not even when I see that he's a bit more bald and the hair he has left is getting a little gray.

Again, this goes completely against my own personal experience. Those of us who have followed the general Boomer mutation from hippies to yuppies to whatever can attest that we changed stories a lot over time.

I'll respectfully disagree. I've found that the trappings may change, but deep down, the "story" does stay the same. If you hold, for example, hard work as important, and you do that when you're a hippy fighting for peace, and when you're a yuppie trying to get a home, and when you're heading into your senior years doing volunteer work...how have you changed? What you'll work hard for might change, but valuing hard work hasn't changed.

I think the same is true for the "story." If you both saw life as a journey when you married, you might still see it now, even though the type of journey has changed. But then, the article doesn't say one way or another. Maybe the story can change. All that matters is that whatever that story, you and your wife share it. If she sees life as a journey, and you don't, then the article postulates there will be a problem. It doesn't say that you can't both see life as a journey when you marry and then later see your life together as a fairy tale. All its says is that you need to agree on what it is.

Could be -- but based on the experience of my own marriage, I don't see any of these patterns as being present or particularly significant. There was no "AHA" -- just "WTF?"

Anyone who is currently in a successful, long-lasting relationship probably won't find any of this significant. I posted the article because I find it interesting purely from a writer's perspective. It's offers some different insights into creating characters who are divorced (didn't share the same story maybe?), married (kidding themselves enough...or not?), or looking for lasting companionship.

Every bit of this stuff is gist for the mill. And that's why I post it. If it's of no help to you, well, then sorry to have wasted your reading time. I hope it will be of use to some other writer. It certainly will be of use to me.

 

[WRJames]

Anyone who is currently in a successful, long-lasting relationship probably won't find any of this significant. I posted the article because I find it interesting purely from a writer's perspective. It's offers some different insights into creating characters who are divorced (didn't share the same story maybe?), married (kidding themselves enough...or not?), or looking for lasting companionship.

Every bit of this stuff is gist for the mill. And that's why I post it. If it's of no help to you, well, then sorry to have wasted your reading time. I hope it will be of use to some other writer. It certainly will be of use to me.

Oh -- I do find it interesting. The main characters in my SF series have a totally messed up marriage -- and probably some of the factors you mention here could be applied to what has gone wrong.