In a relationship, when one partner tries to treat the other partner like a puppet on strings, in my view, control not true love, seems to be the underlying basis for the relationship. Certainly, I believe it is the underlying motivation from the perspective of the controlling party. Whether this need to control arises from fear, jealousy, insecurity or some other emotion, the relationship cannot survive unless the other partner simply surrenders and allows them self to be controlled.If one truly loves another, they will love that person for who they are and seek to see that person grow and prosper. This is so even if this process decreases the lover’s extent to which they can control the other. The need to possess and control another person, whether in terms of who they are free to socialize with, what they are supposed to think and feel, or some other manifestation, is not a loving emotion under this analysis. Particularly, if the methods of attempted control involve alternating threats against the supposed beloved (perhaps including violence) and efforts to provoke pity and sorrow for the manipulating party. Any means to keep the dominated party from leaving.
Faced with this reality, if the would be controlling party shows an absolute unwillingness to change the relationship pattern, I believe the other partner has basically two choices: (1) surrender their soul and stay in the relationship, or (2) leave the relationship. Neither choice is necessarily easy. The first may result in the surrender of any real chance at fulfillment. The latter may likewise be the more difficult if the party leaving the relationship recognizes that the other partner, notwithstanding the failure of the relationship dynamics to be healthy, if he recognizes that the other party does have good qualities. If I am missing something, please illuminate me with your thoughts.
3 comments:
I am right with you on this one, right up until "The latter may likewise be the more difficult if the party leaving the relationship recognizes that the other partner, notwithstanding the failure of the relationship dynamics to be healthy, if he recognizes that the other party does have good qualities."
The "failure of the relationship dynamics to be healthy" is the primary concern. Being controlling is an absolute no-go.
Most everyone has "good qualities". It can be way to easy to wrongly justify staying in a soul-crushing, controlling relationship by focusing on said "good qualities".
Right on with this post. Back in 1980 when I was "straddling the fence" and was engaged to get married, that was the situation I found myself in. Just one of many reasons I broke the engagement. And never have I, nor will I put myself in that situation again. I'd rather it be me, myself and I, rather than go through that Hell again. Walking away is always hard, but sometimes you have to, for, if nothing else, your own sanity and self-respect.
Absolutely 100% right on!
As a "couple," we do have to yield to each other, because we WANT to be molded into each other -- voluntarily, jointly, and severally.
No two people come into a relationship on the same level, plane, or experience. It is flexibility that allows us to interact with each other's strengths, offset each other's weaknesses, and GROW together as two distinctive, yet bonded, individuals.
But, to be flexible, one must be both yielding in oneself, and yielding to the other -- TOGETHER. Early on the relationship should have lots of tension as the rough edges, the unfamiliar, and the scars get ironed out; and over time the brute friction yields to immersion.
Many people, gay and straight, have a horrible misconception of what a bond between Beloveds (Spouses) is. Robert Solomon perhaps exposed those myths, metaphors, and illusions best in his extraordinary book: Love: Emotion, Myth, & Metaphor.
His beautiful phrase "dialectic of togetherness" captures as succinctly as any phrase the core of the bond, both gay and straight. I have recommended this book with mixed results, but it's 100% right on. I've read nothing better on the subject, by anyone. In fact, while reading it, I had to stop nodding incessantly in agreement, as I usually approach books with skepticism. If Solomon's observations are incorrect, I sure could not find them.
Alas, he's a writer who requires a holistic approach to self-understanding and other-standing, and those who find his insights, observations, and comments unintelligible are usually those who have a lot of growing-up to do first.
But on the subject of "love," specifically romantic love, I defer to this extraordinary work. But beware: He tears down myths to reveal the inner core and its dynamics, and some people need myths, and they will not like this book.
Post a Comment