Transient source of happiness...or just filling a void?

[Mr Blonde]

This is not necessarily about BDSM so let's use the Cafe.

Last week someone told me that she expected boyfriends to be fun and bring her happiness, but relationships weren't for filling long term goals and there were no permanent expectations.

Yesterday I found myself sitting in Jack-In-The-Box sampling the new Home Cut Fries while reading Clockers by Richard Price. Here is how Strike, the sober and clean cut 19 year old crack dealer with a conscience, describes the relationship with his girlfriend (Crystal).

Sometimes he got sulky thinking that maybe Crystal liked him more for what he wasn't than for what he was: he wasn't fucked-up on drugs, he wasn't about beating her, he wasn't about taking her money, and he wasn't going to give her the Virus. He wondered sometimes if her reason for going out with him was that he filled a gap without causing her pain.

The contrast is interesting. The idea that a relationship should be a source of fun versus the idea that a relationship serves to fill a void while causing a minimal amount of additional headaches.

Thoughts?

 

[A Desert Rose]

This is not necessarily about BDSM so let's use the Cafe.

Last week someone told me that she expected boyfriends to be fun and bring her happiness, but relationships weren't for filling long term goals and there were no permanent expectations.

Yesterday I found myself sitting in Jack-In-The-Box sampling the new Home Cut Fries while reading Clockers by Richard Price. Here is how Strike, the sober and clean cut 19 year old crack dealer with a conscience, describes the relationship with his girlfriend (Crystal).



The contrast is interesting. The idea that a relationship should be a source of fun versus the idea that a relationship serves to fill a void while causing a minimal amount of additional headaches.

Thoughts?

I don't see a relationship as filling a void. It's more about creating a new, unique and promising space in my life.

Call me a glass-half-full kinda person.

 

[Vixandra]

Well, my relationship does bring me joy, and it does fill a gap in my life.
But I can exsist and be happy without it (though its harder by far)

Perhaps I feel that way only because I'm quite young, but somehow I doubt it.

One of my favorite things about my husband is that he understands most of me and accepts all of me, even the parts that are too insane for anyone but me to understand.

I think perhaps both of your cases are by people not only young in age but in maturity as well, if that makes sense.
I have friends because they're fun and I care about them.
I have a husband because he's my best friend plus my beloved. And the "nightly benefits" are quite good too

 

[shy slave]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes he got sulky thinking that maybe Crystal liked him more for what he wasn't than for what he was: he wasn't fucked-up on drugs, he wasn't about beating her, he wasn't about taking her money, and he wasn't going to give her the Virus. He wondered sometimes if her reason for going out with him was that he filled a gap without causing her pain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know lots of women who stay with partners because of what they are not.

They are not wife beaters, they are not unfaithful, they are not addicts to the bottle or gambling.

These men have many good qualities which help the reason for staying, but their partners/wives are there because they have experienced the other side of the 'they are not.'

I have heard comments like 'yes he watches sport all day and night, has the most boring of hobbies BUT he DOES not.....'

Equally in the same line of thought, I chose the first man I slept with because:
He has lived with someone before
He had had a virgin before
He came across as a sensible person
He carried condoms (yes I checked his wallet)
He appeared quiet so if i chickened out or was a terrible fuck, it was unlikely he would tell people
He did not know my friends nor i his (for the same reason as above)

All pretty callous, in one respect, but I choose him because of the things he was not :
namely a loud -mouthed jerk who possibly already have a an STD, would boast about it to everyone, presuming he found the right hole in the first place, having drunk several pints to prove what a man he was.

 

[Mr Blonde]

Thank you for these replies and the people who wrote me personal messages. This thread might appear fairly unpopular but some people were very interested, so let me re-visit the theme of expectations from a relationship. I promise not to torture anyone with Stephen Stills' lyrics!

Last week I read a short story called "The Rug" by Meg Mullins. It involved an Iranian rug merchant who comes to America to sell rugs and hopes to make enough money for his wife to join him. Over time the husband (Ushman) begins to realize his wife (Farak) is having an affair back in Iran. He ultimately realizes she will not be joining him in America and accepts he is not an easy man for a woman to love.

...he might have brought Farak to America with him and let the fresh flowers and hot dogs on streetcorners lull her into forgiveness. It would be easier to love him there, where the rumblings outside are planes and trucks and where doctors work miracles every day. She could watch the talk shows on TV and see that there are men much worse than he. And they could sit together in the shop on the rugs from the past and dream about the people on the street they wished they were, but would not know how to be. Ushman still believes in that dream. He did not come to America to lose his wife; he came to make a better life for both of them.

The part in italics is my emphasis.

At some point people realize their own limitations and weaknesses. In that fictional story, Farak left Ushman to be with a man who was all the things Ushman was not -- smooth, charming, exciting. Being with Ushman wasn't enough for Farak.

I wonder what happens when one partner pursues a relationship as a "compromise" (please no bad connotation) -- picking someone who isn't something -- while the other partner embraces the relationship as their ideal match. I begin to think that both parties usually know how the other views the relationship.

 

[graceanne]

What a cool thread. I've never really thought about why I'm with my hubby. I'm gonna have to think about this.

 

[catalina_francisco]

When I was a bit younger and not as evolved or readyto recognise my needs I was in the situation of having someone I cared a lot about offering me a commitment (marriage) based on the fact he cared for me too but not to the same degree but could guarantee he would likely stay for at least 5 years.....I decided I wanted more than compromise and was worth it so backed awayand stayed friends. This time I married someone who reflected the love I felt and which made all others pale in comparison, as well as sharing the same idea of what we expected from a M/s relationship and marriage...hopefully we can always share that deep bond and that commonality of purpose which will keep us together, loving and growing forever.

Catalina

 

[graceanne]

Ok, thought about this. I think it's both with me. I married because of what he was AND what he wasn't. Namely he wasn't my mother, and we had similar life goals. Still, I did and do love him, but I would stay married to him even if I didn't. I know this because after he cheated on me, there were periods wher I almost hated him. But I stayed because he is a great dad, a great provider, and he doesn't abuse me. And more importantly, to me, I don't make promises I don't intend to keep, and I swore 'till death do us part'.

 

[Mr Blonde]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies!

Someone asked what I meant when I mentioned Stephen Stills. He wrote the song "Love The One You're With" which has the chorus:

And if you can't be with the one you love, honey
Love the one you're with

Edit: Oops, now I broke my promise!

 

[shy slave]

I wonder what happens when one partner pursues a relationship as a "compromise" (please no bad connotation) -- picking someone who isn't something -- while the other partner embraces the relationship as their ideal match. I begin to think that both parties usually know how the other views the relationship.

Pure sometimes people think they know the others views and realise they can live with it, for reasons relating to the things that person is, or are not.

Sometimes people tell each other their view of the relationship in outright conversation.

More often than not it is a bit of both.

Which means its the non-actions or the oon-conversations that leads one person to believe the other feels differently about the relationship.

Few people would outright ask, and in hearing on hearing the words be able to digest, believe and unconditionally accept the truth.

We rely on our partners to be truthful, but as they often know us best, they can put the 'truth' in such a way as to cushion it, or in such a way that we don't fully recognise it.

In your example, Ushman believed in a dream. His reality and his wifes reality were different.

If his wife had joined him would she have bought the same dream as Ushman? or would she long to be one of the people on the street? Thus ending up bitter, regretful and a bad tempered harriden whom Ushman could not please no matter how he tried.

At the beginning of a relationship we 'sell' the other person a dream. It can be an unconscious process, we are all marketable commodities looking for the right buyer.

Relationships continue selling the dream ~ when we are together we can... If the other person buys that same dream, the feelings for the other person can be a seperate entity. For example:

"I don't love this person the way I loved someone when was 17 yrs old; but now I am 50 I want different things. They have the same views/ideals/wishes as i therefore we are together."

As long as the selling of dreams/wishes/desires continue to match then relationships can function succesfully in whatever context and under a variety of circumstances.

Sorry about the long post and if i have gone off the point somewhat. xx

 

[Betticus]

Ok, thought about this. I think it's both with me. I married because of what he was AND what he wasn't. Namely he wasn't my mother, and we had similar life goals. Still, I did and do love him, but I would stay married to him even if I didn't. I know this because after he cheated on me, there were periods wher I almost hated him. But I stayed because he is a great dad, a great provider, and he doesn't abuse me. And more importantly, to me, I don't make promises I don't intend to keep, and I swore 'till death do us part'.

I think I understand you. I'm very loyal once I love someone and even though I've been divorced I still feel guilty about breaking that vow.

Some of my female friends wonder why I don't get into casual sex even though women tend to come on to me. It is the loyalty part. I won't have sex or play with someone that I can't see having a life with.

For me there is no filling of the void. It is there but I just live with it. I won't fill anyone elses emptiness either. Not for just a short time. It's all or nothing. Just the way I'm made.