Relationships: Choose "honest (emotional) trade" over manipulation

[Roxanne Appleby]

I started this as a post in the "passive-agression" thread, and it grew to be more than I expected. I post this in a benevolent spirit, on the chance that someone else might benefit, and not to start a debate or argument. If you disagree or think this is overly simplistic I won't argue, you might be right. On the other hand, someone else may find it helpful.

We all have ways of trying to get what we want; some of them are pleasant, reasoned, kind ways, and others are not.

In my view there are three ways to get what you want: Honest trade, manipulation, and violence. Set aside the third. Passive-aggression, guilt trips, dishonesty, etc. are all examples of the second.

In some families children learn that the only way or the most effective way to get what they want is manipulation. They frequently carry this into adulthood, and in the most severe cases can't even imagine that any other way exists.

In my family both methods were possible. I only learned the distinction later, when it was pointed out to me by an S.O. that I was using manipulation. In my case this was not a huge character flaw, just a blind spot, and so once revealed was not difficult to fix.

In my life as a mature adult I have refused any relationship where I am manipulated. I am sufficiently self-contained that this choice is easy, but I know that for those with greater emotional needs it is not so easy.

A wise Objectivist philosopher I know offered this on a related matter, and it applies here:

"There are three ways to gain values from others: honest trade, robbing, or mooching. If you took the overall happiness, wealth, life satisfaction of these three groups, my bet is those who live by honest trade come out on top.

"Also, one's character will be consistent. You can either cultivate honest virtues and get along with people that way, or dishonest ones, which will necessarily always be creating problems for you and everyone around you. People obviously do it because they think it's easier, but they are ignorant of the quality of the life they could have been living. All that behavior is just childishness at an adult level, and no more effective."

What is "honest trade" in an emotional sense? Put the emphasis on the first word and you can usually figure it out. If two individuals communicate to each other with complete honesty and self knowledge what each wants, and what each is ready, willing and able to give in return, then it will be clear to both whether there is a basis for a mutually satisfactory "deal."

Oh, that sounds so easy, doesn't it! We know it is not - that little "full self knowledge" detail, for instance, is very difficult to attain. I may think I am able to offer certain emotional values, but after a while it becomes clear that I just don't have what it takes in that particular area. However, if both parties have dealt in good faith from the beginning, the "terms of the deal" can be adjusted over time, or the "contract" can be canceled, without the need for rancor or bitterness. If I did not know something about myself for no malicious reason, and "didn't know I didn't know," what are the grounds for bitterness from the other party? Sadness perhaps, and disappointment that they won't get what they wanted, but not bitterness.

If we are talking about a marriage with kids certain "contract terms" are not subject to revision - like that 18 year economic and emotional commitment to each child - but the terms of the "emotional trade" between the partners themselves can be revised.

Honesty and good faith are the keys, along with one other factor: Accepting reality. "Honesty" means being honest with yourself, too, which means not letting your needs and desires blind you to another person's faults and dishonesty, or willfully ignoring or denying those. "When someone shows you who they are (through some bad behavior), believe them." The clues are always there - always. If you refuse to see or believe that evidence, and you screw up your life as a result, your anger should be directed at yourself, not the other. You can change yourself, but not another person.

I know it's much harder than this makes it sound, but my advice to anyone involved in a "corrupt deal" is to get the hell out. It is never too late to adopt this method of living, but if you have already messed up your life with one or more such bad deals then "cleaning up the mess" will be a challenge. So be it - it's probably not an impossible challenge. Finding happiness in a corrupt emotional relationship is impossible.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Thanks for the advice. I'll clean my life up as soon as my nails are dry.

 

[cloudy]

Thanks for the advice. I'll clean my life up as soon as my nails are dry.

Thank you.

edited to add: nothing against you, Roxanne, but it's VERY easy to offer advice that is so general as to be almost useless to the individual.

 

[LadyJeanne]

If two individuals communicate to each other with complete honesty and self knowledge what each wants, and what each is ready, willing and able to give in return, then it will be clear to both whether there is a basis for a mutually satisfactory "deal."

Who are these people that are so perfectly adjusted? Certainly not humans...

I know it's much harder than this makes it sound, but my advice to anyone involved in a "corrupt deal" is to get the hell out.

Really? Just get out? Marriage counselors would go out of business and divorce lawyers would be busier than they currently are if we all did this. Humans are imperfect, so it's not shocking that our relationships are imperfect. If we gave up because our partners have issues, especially the unconscious issues that work their way into our psyches as children, we would all be alone.

Personally, I think of myself as a work in progress. If my partner just gave up on me because I can't communicate with complete honesty and self-knowledge about my wants and what I can give, he'd miss out on a fantastic person who's still trying to figure things out.

 

[Pure]

What a list of choices

trade, manipulation, or violence....

hmmm seems stacked, to me!

'free trade' is misleading in economics, and of little use in discussing relationships, or in describing 'ideal' ones (if such exist).

'trade' involves 'quid pro quo', which entails measurement and calculation; i give you X amount of love; you give me Y amount of approval. exchanges of 'equivalent value.'

in sex, too, trade sounds crass "I'll give 3 pussy eatings for 5 blowjobs, since the latter are quicker."

a trader has to be careful not to overextend him/herself, just as a supplier to a store cannot give too much 'credit'.

it is true that 'successful' relationships involve both sides being satisfied and affirmed in some way ("getting something from the relationship" as we say, in metaphoric terms). to attempt to quantify the 'satisfactions' or 'affirmings', not to say, compare to establish if there's 'free trade' (equivalent value--objectively determined, of course) is misguided, imo.

in place of 'trade', Nietzsche's 'gift giving virtue'--overflowing abundance stemming from a basic vitality. one statement being: If I love you, what concern is it to you? (IOW, it's there, enjoy; there are no 'conditions' you should be concerned with, no demands forthcoming.)

 

[rgraham666]

Sorry Roxanne, but by reducing relationships to a matter of 'trade', you are cheapening them.

You are also opening the door to one of the worst forms of manipulation in relationships, emotional accounting.

In emotional accounting, a person keeps a ledger of the other person's actions in their head and is constantly balancing out the debits and credits.

The problem is that many people have a 'weighting system' that they are unaware of, or they are aware and think it's a fair weighting system.

For example, the guy leaves the toilet seat up. This often translates to a huge debit. The reciprocal action, putting it down again, will not balance out the instance of leaving it up. There is a prejudicial weighting on the debit. A year later, the guy still hasn't worked off the debit, even if he put the seat down every time since.

In fairness, many guys do the same thing. Very often with regard to acts of fellatio.

Not only does emotional accounting take energy out of the relationship, but the weighting system is usually such that the other person is always going to be in debt to the accountant.

A relationship reduced to economics is going to be unsatisfying to both parties.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Rob. I love you.

I think he touches on a great central issue. To some of us - perhaps not all - love implies generosity. It involves being generous and feeling that one's partner is generous. Unfortunately, to some - alas, I am one - spelling out and negotiating each desire can feel lacking in emotion because it seems to undermine that generosity. One wishes, from time to time, not to trade or negotiate for the fulfillment of one's desires, but to be charmed and soothed by a spontaneous gesture of affection unpaid for and unasked for.

This can be dangerous, of course. If one pushes that model to its extreme, it becomes "If you loved me, you would read my mind and fulfill my desires without me ever enunciating them." But any model pushed to an extreme tends to fall apart, particularly relationship models. Nothing will get one everything one wants without fuss, pain, or difficulty. Then again, things won without fuss, pain, or difficulty are generally not very interesting. Striking the balance between honest communication and negotiation and an unspoken empathy and desire to please, protect, charm, and make happy - ah, there's all the fuss and bother. But at least, if one tries, one aims at a good target.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

Argh!

I finally get someone to say they love me. And they're not even the same species as me.

 

[joeys-game]

Holy shit folks, i think Roxanne only offered the thread as a point of interest, not to give everyone advice..give her a break

 

[cloudy]

No offense, Joey, but you don't know what conversations have gone on in PM, either. Might change that little

 

[joeys-game]

No offense, Joey, but you don't know what conversations have gone on in PM, either. Might change that little

How could i know whats gone on or been exchanged via pm..im responding to a public thread here..
no offense taken

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Clarifications.

I should have recognized that word "trade" necessarily has the connotation of commercial transactions that are tit-for-tat, quid-for-quo, etc. In the emotional realm the "trades" are obviously much more complex, the terms are often implicit, the "negotiations" are often protracted and also implicit, the "performance" is not subject to simplistic accounting, and more. I agree that simplistic forms of “emotional accounting” can be very destructive.

However, it does seem that almost by definition there is a basic transaction involved in every relationship, emotional or otherwise - I will get something that I want, and you will get something that you want, and we get these things from each other. I mean, you can't imagine a satisfactory relationship in which I get everything I want and you get nothing you want. To use the words Pure wrote above, “It is true that 'successful' relationships involve both sides being satisfied and affirmed in some way.” This is what I mean by “honest trade.”

I may be wrong, but I don’t see where this excludes concepts others have mentioned, including generosity of spirit. The wise horsie said, “One wishes, from time to time, not to trade or negotiate for the fulfillment of one's desires, but to be charmed and soothed by a spontaneous gesture of affection unpaid for and unasked for.” Here, here. Not to be flip, but the ability to receive that and to give it is part of the “trade” that I myself would want to make in any emotional relationship.

Horsie also said, “Any model pushed to an extreme tends to fall apart . . . Striking the balance between honest communication and negotiation and an unspoken empathy and desire to please, protect, charm, and make happy - ah, there's all the fuss and bother. But at least, if one tries, one aims at a good target.” Who can deny it? The fact that this was intended as some kind of rebuttal to my post indicates what an execrable job I did in defining my terms.

A couple people misread parts of my post. I acknowledged that self-knowledge is imperfect, that “I may think I am able to offer certain emotional values (but learn later) I just don't have what it takes in that particular area. However, if both parties have dealt in good faith ‘the terms of the deal’ can be adjusted, without the need for rancor or bitterness.” The distinction I meant to make is between this and a situation where I dishonestly promise to give something that I know I cannot give, or don’t intend to give. We all know this happens, and it is the opposite of “honest trade” however you define it.

I also said “anyone involved in a ‘corrupt deal’ should get the hell out.” The conventional term for this is “toxic relationship.” We all know these exist, too, and probably most here would agree that the goal of the party being “poisoned” should be to get out. Whether circumstances make that possible or not must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Possible or not, the goal of escape is not changed.

It is likely that with clarifications or qualifications some will conclude that my post is nothing but banal generalities. I won’t argue, maybe they are correct. I was in fact offering advice here, and each individual can decide for him or herself whether the concept of honest trade, very broadly defined, is useful in the emotional realm.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Roxanne, thank you. I see your point now and agree. Trading generosity without a concentration on measuring and ensuring scrupulous return of effort is indeed still trading, and I see now how you meant it.

Rob, just look at it as the first step in the right direction. Perhaps you can work your way up to an alpaca by Valentine's day.

 

[rgraham666]

Roxanne, this is an example of the weighting that people give to words.

You see 'trade', in my opinion, as a moral activity. An activity that by its very nature is good.

I see it as an amoral activity. It is neither good nor bad but is used for specific purposes and is directed by the morals of its users.

So we are going to disagree on 'trading' in a relationship.

Had you said 'honest communication' I would have agreed with you. 'Trading', no.

 

[Pure]

corrupt deals

RR: I also said “anyone involved in a ‘corrupt deal’ should get the hell out.” The conventional term for this is “toxic relationship.” We all know these exist, too, and probably most here would agree that the goal of the party being “poisoned” should be to get out.

Such toxicity, however, is not necessarily based in 'dishonesty', as the 'trade' metaphor might be said to imply. (or fraud or corruption or any commerce-related terms )

Further every 'toxic relationship' so called also involves 'trades' of (perceived) 'equivalent values.' One party is giving love in an arrangement whereby he, in parallel process, receives support for his self esteem, gets praise and approval from the other.

If that is happening, there is a trade or 'deal,' and one with an enduring quality that represents a kind of 'success.' It just happens Roxanne--like myself--does not like what's being traded.