...baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more!

Zulu

What is love?

Following on from the general trend in PI to advise people who question if they are in love to leave their partners, I've been considering if this is in fact good advice.
Generally speaking a poster describes living with their OH and loving them, just not being "in love" with them; that they are best friends with them; that they are comfortable with them however, things are different; things have gone stale; they have fallen from lovers to friends.
They further explore the possibility of leaving. Inevitably, the advice is: leave them, you don't love them, they deserve better/you deserve better. The over riding advice is not to settle.
People aren't happy because they can't find "the one".

However it occurs to me that, a generation ago, these people would probably have been married and starting a family by this stage. It occurs to me that two generations ago people managed to find "the one" in their local village, within two or three miles. It also occurs to me that plenty of other societies have arranged marriages, which have been very successful.
How did other generations manage this? Could they have been so lucky to find "the one" so close to home; were their parents such judge of human relationships that they could pick a life partner for their children? Or did they settle?

So, I'd like to open a discussion.

Has our society lost sight of reality? Do we have an unrealistic expectation on human relationships? Has modern society, and the global village provided us with too much choice, to detrimental effect? Should our PI gurus be changing their tune to: "settle! That's what the smart kids do."

I mean, if love isn't an divine emotion appointed by god(s), then if can only be a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions don't last forever (the honeymoon wears off) so whats left only a friend? Someone you love but aren't "in love" with.

Oryx

Modern society is a feel good society. No-one (with a 'normal' standard of living anyway) suffers anymore. We are always comfy. We are never cold, hungry, never exhausted, never wanting for anything, unless by choice. We are used to having our needs met. Seeing our favourite shows, eating what we feel like rather than what is there in the cupboard. I think we are simply not used to putting up with anything sub standard any more. It has become unacceptable. And that has reflected in our attitude towards our relationships. Mundane but peaceful simply doesnt cut it. As with our video games and takeaway curries, it has to be exciting and it has to be spicy. If thats not there, we are seen as missing out or not doing it right.

On some levels of course there is a point to change. We only get one life, and we need to get as much from it as we can. There really is no point in wasting away in a horrible relationship. But in our society you have to keep moving on to the next big thrill. People never seem to want to let things calm down and move to the next, quieter level of a relationship. Having the mad fire of lust go out is seen as a failure. But its actually inevitable. In fact it can be an opportunity to know your partner on a whole other level.

The whole love but not in love thing, to me is a complete and utter nonsense. Its a way of giving yourself an excuse to leave someone who bores you. And its yet another symptom of the society we live in where theres always something bigger, better and more exciting around the corner. As with our mobile phones, we change a perfectly functioning but ordinary relationship with the new model that has a new look and more buttons to push. Until we get bored with that too.

metrovelvet

Now people want the buzz. They have forgotten that love, once the buzz wears off, which it always does, is a choice.

In PI, I think people are far too quick to advise others to leave.

You will as likely find the One as you will Utopia. I take the ONE to mean someone you will never ever have to compromise with. Good luck with that one.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Oryx wrote: »

The whole love but not in love thing, to me is a complete and utter nonsense. Its a way of giving yourself an excuse to leave someone who bores you. And its yet another symptom of the society we live in where theres always something bigger, better and more exciting around the corner. As with our mobile phones, we change a perfectly functioning but ordinary relationship with the new model that has a new look and more buttons to push. Until we get bored with that too.

Hehehe eactly what I was thinking!

But it is a good topic, was wondering about it recently. My 21year old mate having her second pregnancy at present is a shock to most but really wouldn't be at all strange a few decades ago.

I don't think humans have a partner for life instinct, so whilst it works for some its not always gonna work. I think in maybe 50-100 years it won't be at all unusual to go along with the idea of marriages/relationships where it's already decided the people will split up after a certain amount of time

ChocolateSauce

I think when the children grow up they'll stop seeking fairy-tale love and settle on the adult kind.

Zulu

I don't think is a problem reserved to children. ...unless you consider people in the 23-28 age bracket children? Which is where I see this impacting people the most.
A couple going out 5 years, hitting that age bracket, I'd love to see the odds on surviving!

@Metrovelvet: I was considering that anyone could find the "one", it was just that people don't realise that the "one" isn't the teenaged hormonal crush.

Oryx

Anyone can become 'the one'. Which is why some people find 'the one' in their own street, and others need to travel the world and work through a hundred options before settling for their perfect match. Its all to do with your expectations. Set them too high, and noone will ever reach them.

Zulu

...exactly what I was thinking.
But wouldn't that then imply that the concept of "one" is utter nonsence, and by extention anyone who is happy is happy because they have ultimatly "settled" (the implication there being they've settled for someone/thing lower than expected).

Ergo, it's foolish or a fools errand to leave the comfort of a workable relationship, to seek another.

r3nu4l

The Celtic Tiger has meant that most younger people haven't been deprived of much, haven't suffered much and generally have had it very easy. This isn't a bad thing (no one wants to go back to those days!) but it has softened people and made us seek more imo.

When you always get what you want, it's easy to want more and more. If you hardly ever get what you want you'll settle for something that comes along and be happy that you have it.

When it comes to love you only have to look at TV or the movies to see that love is considered to be full of romance and passion all the time. When it's not, the main character (e.g. Shirley Valentine) go out to seek more in their lives. This, coupled with the Celtic Tiger, disposable, throw-away society does cause problems.

People are also influenced by constant media messages. The big-deal made of celebrity split-ups is also a problem. It gives the message that if a relationship isn't working perfectly, you get out of it and into another one. How many Hollywood stars/starlets do we see getting divorced and then entering a new relationship accompanied by headlines such as "Celebrity finds love again", "Romantic walk on the beach for celebrity".

We don't hear much about couples having to work at maintaining their relationships or marriages. Occasionally we see words such as "fights to save marriage" but less and less and it's usually coupled with portents of doom such as 'last-ditch attempt' or 'flagging marriage'. In other words, we only hear about it when it's 'too late'.

Another important aspect is that years ago people got married very young, they got pre-marriage guidance preparation. This usually entailed a lesson on morality and sex etc but more importantly also dealt with conflict resolution and finance management. These days less people are getting married and most people live together in long-term relationships before even thinking about marriage (if ever). As a result they are not getting any guidance into how to manage a relationship and when things start to go wrong they don't know how to put them right. Things get worse and then they post on PI to which the masses say 'Leave him/her'.

We should also remember that it's very easy for someone to say 'leave' when it's not their relationship.

asdasd

Brilliant post Zulu.

My feeling is that people shouldnt live together until married, or they want sprogs. This is not a religious thing, it is just that any two people living together are going to bore the pants off each other. The way it used to work

1) Met
2) Fell in love
3) visited each others houses, or went out. this was an event.
4) marrried and moved in
5) Kids within a year
6a) Fell out of romantic love but stayed together for the kids
or
6b) Fell into a deeper love based on how they loved their kids.

In the absence of children the modern couple has to basically bore each other's pants off. With kids they bore the rest of us , but seem to find conversation about the children interesting amongst themselves :-)

Also living with someone, as opposed to inviting them over, removes the romanticism of the thing. A female friend of mine says that her boyfriend plays videogames all nght, unless she can convince him to bring her out for a meal.

Were they not living together he would have to play the host when she came over. which excludes WOW ( but could mean watching TV together). Even if she came over 5 nights a week. Also he could have time to play games on the days she is not over, and she is not fuming silently in the corner.

It also means little thing rankle less, the toilet seat being up in his place, his jumper on the floor is not the same as the toilet seat being up in their place, or the jumper on her floor ( the bedroom is always the ladies).

Sure he will be a slob when they move in but the house will be full of kids, and will be messy anyway, and he may compensate by being a great dad.

It's clear on here. People fall out of love by living together.

Oryx

Zulu wrote: »

Ergo, it's foolish or a fools errand to leave the comfort of a workable relationship, to seek another.

The only problem being, how do you define a workable relationship, as opposed to one that SHOULD be ditched?

r3nu4l

Oryx wrote: »

The only problem being, how do you define a workable relationship, as opposed to one that SHOULD be ditched?

"SHOULD be ditched" - One where neither party either loves or is in love with the other. One where violence has flared. One where one or both parties take delight in constantly bullying, nitpicking or generally engaging in negative actions towards the other. One where both parties do not want to make any further effort.

'workable' - One where there are some problems but both parties feel love or are in love with the other. One where there is no violence. One where both parties would like change. One where both parties recognise that problems exist but need help to overcome those problems.

Those are quick, off-the-cuff responses but form a basis for how I feel. They are NOT well thought out nor definitive but they'll do as a 'starter for 10'.

Oryx

Good points. But we are still back to the throwaway mentality which means some repairable relationships are split because the people involved see no point in continuing. All the examples given above, including where love is lost, could, if there was a will to, be pulled back from the brink. The only point where I could not see a relationship saved, is where love has been left rot to the point where it has changed to absolute loathing. Dull, bullying, even violent relationships can be saved (not saying the should be most of the time, but still) but where two people have become strangers who dont really like each other, or actively dislike each other, thats the tricky one. Love you can live without, but companionship and compatibility must remain.

Malari

I agree, Zulu, it's a good observation and something that occurred to me reading some of the solutions in PI. Honestly, if I posted a synopsis of my relationship there right now I reckon I would get half of the replies telling me to leave!

I think it has something to do with compromise. When you live with someone and know them well you can usually tell what ticks them off and arguments can often be as easily avoided as engaged in for the most part. If you love a person I think you should put that as the foremost reason to work on the relationship, rather that start from scratch and try to find someone even better. I find that people are unwilling to bend at all or have the attitude that "I'm too good to be treated like this" without really looking at what compromises are being made for their benefit.

I don't think it's all about whether you live together, because in my view, living together will really tell you what it's like to be with someone. Asdasd's description seems to just fill a relationship with distractions until you can no longer put it off and now you have to look at the person you are living with and see if you actually love them!

Zulu

Oryx wrote: »

The only problem being, how do you define a workable relationship, as opposed to one that SHOULD be ditched?

Well in my mind, one that should be ended is an abusive one. (Be that physical or mental)
A workable one is pretty much any other relationship, although I guess, it comes down to both parties actually making an effort.
I have to say, I don't agree with the "not moving in" or that "moving in" is a bad idea. I do acknowledge though some very valid points. If you move in, I believe a party is going to get to the "bored" stage quicker, and unless they are willing to make an effort....

asdasd

If you move in, I believe a party is going to get to the "bored" stage quicker, and unless they are willing to make an effort....

Well yeah. I remember a post in PI some weeks ago about lack of sex in a LT relationship. he was tired. She was tired. They were fond of each other still etc. Bored basically.

i didnt rerply but it seems obvious that one thing you can do is change your surroundings. go to a hotel, get some champagne. And so on.

However this relationship would not be sexless were they not living together, it would eihter be broken up, or because of the effort of going around to the OH house, or meeting out, getting drunk and coming home - sexual. by not living together the effort ot meet, to dress well etc - even in a long term - keeps it spiced up.

For couples living together they need breaks - hotels, trips away etc. to spice things up. Not always affordable.

ChocolateSauce

Zulu wrote: »

I don't think is a problem reserved to children. ...unless you consider people in the 23-28 age bracket children? Which is where I see this impacting people the most.
A couple going out 5 years, hitting that age bracket, I'd love to see the odds on surviving!

@Metrovelvet: I was considering that anyone could find the "one", it was just that people don't realise that the "one" isn't the teenaged hormonal crush.

Putting a fixed age on the concept I have in mind is kind of pointless, a person could remain a fairy-tale romatic their whole life, or settle into a truly adult relationship at 21. It's probably beyond my ability to explain.

Anyone who thinks along the lines of "there's someone for everybody" or "the one" is in the first category. That's not to say you can't develop an adult relationship from a fairytale one; you can, and many people do, but anyone who is more interested in being in love than in being with someone whom they love needs a wake up call.

Although to home in on your original point Zulu, I agree with you to say it is very bad advice to tell people to leave their partners if they have doubts. Love is only one part of an adult relationship and of course they should question it! Otherwise it is blind love. If they question it, they can decide if they are happy.

In the past people formed relationships for many reasons, but in the vast majority of cases it was not because they had a mature, stable, two-way relationship: It was because it was needed or expected of them, and because they didn't know any better. People know more today than they did in the past and I think society does not set unrealistic expectations on people, though they do set unrealistic ones for themselves sometimes.

SpookyDoll

Has our society lost sight of reality? Do we have an unrealistic expectation on human relationships? Has modern society, and the global village provided us with too much choice, to detrimental effect? Should our PI gurus be changing their tune to: "settle! That's what the smart kids do."

No way have we lost sight of reality, not the current reality anyway.
The old reality is gone and good riddance. How can we have "too much choice" -not possible, its better to be able to cherry pick nowadays rather than be stuck with a small selection like a couple of generations ago.

Women especially have more freedom and can suit themselves more, contraception, medical advances lengthening our fertile lives, we dont need to "settle" -how is settling ever smart?? Its not.

And more to the point why settle?
There is no better feeling than escaping from a relationship thats not working. All hail the selfish new society, I love it, why put up with what our mothers did? No need.
Consume, enjoy.

I mean, if love isn't an divine emotion appointed by god(s), then if can only be a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions don't last forever (the honeymoon wears off) so whats left only a friend? Someone you love but aren't "in love" with.

Yeh, exactly so the lesson to learn as I see it, is dont bind yourself to anyone with property or kids, always leave an open door, friends are nice but nothing beats the rush of animal attraction you get in the first few months of a relationship, when that goes off the boil....next!!!!
Thank you drive through!!!!

r3nu4l

^

I wonder how you'll feel about this way of life when you are 65 years old. Something tells me it won't seem so appealing to you then.

jim o doom

Well we live in a throwaway society - and that's how a lot of people view their relationships too. Not an amazing point, but true. Luckily I have found "the perfect one", together nearly 7 years, getting married, happy as a dog with 2 mickeys.

Oryx

r3nu4l wrote: »

^

I wonder how you'll feel about this way of life when you are 65 years old. Something tells me it won't seem so appealing to you then.

Agree. That attitude fades as the years creep on. Even if you tell yourself itll never happen to you, it does, security and peace becomes more important than thrills.

Latchy

r3nu4l wrote: »

^

I wonder how you'll feel about this way of life when you are 65 years old. Something tells me it won't seem so appealing to you then.

Indeed , A lot of people are in sucessful relationships because they work at it .The same in marriages .To many people want out because they dont want to deal with the realitys of relationships and see romance as the solution , when it's really just another (sometimes very nice ) form of escapeism .

Zulu

SpookyDoll wrote: »

Women especially have more freedom and can suit themselves more, contraception, medical advances lengthening our fertile lives, we dont need to "settle" -how is settling ever smart?? Its not.

Well, most people are inclined to want a family. Having children on your own, while it's ok, isn't ideal. Settling is very smart when it come to trying to raise little children.

And more to the point why settle?

Because you don't want to have a family? Because you are lonely??

There is no better feeling than escaping from a relationship thats not working.

There is, fixing it. However this is a point many people miss.

All hail the selfish new society, I love it, why put up with what our mothers did? No need.
Consume, enjoy.

I fear you are confusing two completely different issues.

SpookyDoll

That attitude fades as the years creep on. Even if you tell yourself itll never happen to you, it does, security and peace becomes more important than thrills.

Yeh, thats what Ive been told...hmm..lets see....forever and its not fading.

Plus, security and peace are never going to become more important than thrills to me -I accept that Im different to most people in that regard. But what harm.

Well, most people are inclined to want a family. Having children on your own, while it's ok, isn't ideal. Settling is very smart when it come to trying to raise little children.

Why bother though? They're great and good luck to people who want them but not everyone does, to me there are more important things in life.

Because you don't want to have a family? Because you are lonely??

I dont think I do want to have a family, it would be a lot of hard work and could be injurous to my love life! Shallow but true!

There is, fixing it. However this is a point many people miss.

Ah why bother, a lot aint worth fixing, better to move on and find someone you like more. Life is short.

Im in a happy relationship at the moment, I love my man and hope it carries on as long as we are both happy, thats enough for me, this idea of "the one for life" -I just dont buy it.

Zulu

SpookyDoll wrote: »

Ah why bother, a lot aint worth fixing, better to move on and find someone you like more. Life is short.

Indeed, life is short. Developing a long and fruitful relationship, I feel, will provide more satisfaction and challenge to me than multiple short relationships. I've been there and done that, and got pretty much all I feel I'm going to get from that.

I love my man and hope it carries on as long as we are both happy, thats enough for me, this idea of "the one for life" -I just dont buy it.

So as soon as you're unhappy, you'll leave him? Is he aware of this? Does he understand you've no intention of working on your relationship?

If so, more power to you.

asdasd

So as soon as you're unhappy, you'll leave him? Is he aware of this? Does he understand you've no intention of working on your relationship?

If so, more power to you.

I think he should be made aware of it. I dated a girl like Spookydoll and would have preferred to know beforehand her feeling on long termism.

Still there are people out there like sd, there is a bell shaped curve of human sexuality and emotion, and I think she is genuine in knowing what she wants.

SpookyDoll

Developing a long and fruitful relationship, I feel, will provide more satisfaction and challenge to me than multiple short relationships. I've been there and done that, and got pretty much all I feel I'm going to get from that.

Sounds like its working for you which is the most important thing and youve made a choice too rather than sleepwalking into it because society says so, again very important.

Ive had two long termers lol.....been there, done that!
Im not saying I dont believe in them, but I dont believe in perpetuating them after their natural term either which incidentally I dont presume anyone on here is doing! Just exploring the theme myself I suppose.

So as soon as you're unhappy, you'll leave him? Is he aware of this? Does he understand you've no intention of working on your relationship?

lol no I wont leave him, I own the gaff ha ha!!!
But to be serious, yeh of course, wouldnt anybody.
Ive done it before and I will do it again if I have to.

Is he aware of this?

Of course .....sure it doesnt have to be spoken. Its understood implicitly that if you fcuk someone over they will terminate your contract. I dont assume anything else so I dont think it needs to be explicitly stated. At all.

Does he understand you've no intention of working on your relationship?

I work on the relationship already, I work at keeping it fun, relaxed and enjoyable. If it started to become real work I would be outty, relationship is supposed to be pleasure not work.

asdasd

sure it doesnt have to be spoken. Its understood implicitly that if you fcuk someone over they will terminate your contract. I dont assume anything else so I dont think it needs to be explicitly stated. At all.

It is not understood implicity that he expects to be fcuked over.

Zulu

I think some misunderstanding is creeping in.
"Being fucked over" is a lot different that becoming bored.

Malari

SpookyDoll wrote: »

Of course .....sure it doesnt have to be spoken. Its understood implicitly that if you fcuk someone over they will terminate your contract. I dont assume anything else so I dont think it needs to be explicitly stated. At all.

I work on the relationship already, I work at keeping it fun, relaxed and enjoyable. If it started to become real work I would be outty, relationship is supposed to be pleasure not work.

I think this is where things are getting mixed up. If I understand correctly, the original thread was broadly aimed at people who complain in PI with relatively minor things, like "my boyfriend went out with his friends last night instead of cuddling on the sofa with me" and the advice given is "leave him - it's the shape of things to come!"

You seem to be working on your relationship in order that this kind of thing doesn't become an issue. Of course, if the complaint is "my boyfriend slept with this girl he fancies instead of me last night" that would come under the category of Fcuked Over and of course, outty is then an option.

IanCurtis

jim o doom wrote: »

Well we live in a throwaway society - and that's how a lot of people view their relationships too. Not an amazing point, but true. Luckily I have found "the perfect one", together nearly 7 years, getting married, happy as a dog with 2 mickeys.

Hahahahahaaa

"the perfect one" . . . .what a load of sentimental gick!!!

The last fella riding her thought the same thing :rolleyes:

Zulu

thanks for that considered, insightful and productive input :rolleyes:

IanCurtis

1. Grow Up
2. Get Real
3. Cop On

We're not in Kansas anymore "Zulu"

nacho libre

Zulu wrote: »

I think some misunderstanding is creeping in.
"Being fucked over" is a lot different that becoming bored.

exactly. sorry i'm leaving you dear because i'm bored.:rolleyes:
i would hate to find myself in a relationship with someone as childish and feckless as this.
well, people are different but a relationship to me is about more than ticking every box. if you have genuine affection and love for someone you are with them for who they are not who you wish they could be. unless you are a childish buffoon you will realise that not every day will be like the intial stages of the relationship where you probably couldn't keep your hands off each other and looked at each other with puppy eyes. most long- lasting relationships require work at some stage and something more than sexual chemistry because at some point the passion wanes so there has to be other factors keeping you together.
this is not to say you stay with someone for the sake of it or out of pity- the latter is quite cruel.

Oryx

IanCurtis wrote: »

1. Grow Up
2. Get Real
3. Cop On

Id love you to elaborate on that in words of more than one syllable. Anyone can post sound bites here, its much harder to make an argument that youve actually thought about.:)

Other than that, I agree with you. 'The one' is only a fanciful wish, based a lot on hollywood movies. But it dont mean you cant create a relationship thats not far off of that, if you realise that its not all about fizzing excitement and banging off the walls sex. The most perfect relationships are the ones that can become placid (as most longterm things do) without becoming dull.

metrovelvet

Oryx wrote: »

Id love you to elaborate on that in words of more than one syllable. Anyone can post sound bites here, its much harder to make an argument that youve actually thought about.:)

Other than that, I agree with you. 'The one' is only a fanciful wish, based a lot on hollywood movies. But it dont mean you cant create a relationship thats not far off of that, if you realise that its not all about fizzing excitement and banging off the walls sex. The most perfect relationships are the ones that can become placid (as most longterm things do) without becoming dull.

Boredom is often the precursor the creativity, the creativity to deepen.

Wibbs

I think zulu raises a bloody good point. I see this a lot in PI. The leave em mentality. I personally only advise that if the partner is abusive. I would probably advise it too with certain younger types say between 18-23 who start to really question the relationship. They will get bored and because they are told the world is at their fingertips(it's not), they'll likely beget an even more unhealthy relationship down the line if they stay. In a way they need to see their options for the most part aren't as expansive as they think. Best they don't wait around too long though or then it's facing down the barrel of 35 wonder WTF happened. Which is more true for women generally.

The world as has been said, has changed. What worked before doesn't now and we do have to adapt. The honeymoon period lasts anywhere from 6 months to(if you're really lucky) 4 years. After that it wanes. every single time(the only time I've seen it continue, in largely a forced way, is when one partner is obviously batting out of their league and won't let go and works on it). Apparently you can even see that with levels of certain hormones. Now we all kinda know this, yet ignore it with the next "one" as iancurtis clumsily put it earlier. Kinda like women who go through the pain of childbirth, it gets reset after the baby comes along and they'll have more pregnancies and labours after it. Some researchers reckon humans even have a built in mating period of 4/5 years.

In PI I've been accused more than once of simplifying this by saying its boredom. IMHO 90% of the time is just that. Boredom. Pure and simple. Yes it's dressed up in excuses, like falling out of love or others of that ilk, but boredom it is. I've seen people leave one person because they said it was issue X only to go off with someone right after with even more of issue X involved. I've even pointed this out, but they will deny it. Why? because of the novelty of the new.

There's also the biological aspect to it. What flicks people's switches both biologically and emotionally. It largely boils down to sexually in reality IMHO. Though the moon in june brigade dont like to hear that. When one person in a couple becomes sexually bored the relationship is on the way out and in need of serious work. Our biology works very subtly too. Look at the studies that have shown women who are on the pill when they meet their partners are something like 4 times more likely to dump them afet they come off the pill. Of course as other studies have shown women are attracted to different male faces depending on their fertility status. The other weird one that showed that lap dancers get twice as many tips if they're not on the pill than those that are. To the degree that it's known inthe business apparently. There's a lot going on.

I think that stuff hits hard at the start. If the relationship survives the first year then after that stage it fails through boredom. I would also reckon that IME women far more than men do the dumping in long termers.

It can be turned around though

A good while back I knew this bloke whose live in partner dumped him and went off with another bloke. Again the "I've fallen out of love/I never loved you the way I love this guy/I love you, but I'm not in love with you etc". The usual. She even got engaged to this new guy within 6 months. Original guy was heartbroken and a few of us reckoned the new guy wasn't too healthy for her long term, so one day I thought lets get them back together. It worked too. Remarkably easily. Now this was a woman who said to me in plain english, "I couldn't imagine being with him again as a couple". She actually gave a little shudder for effect. She was basically talking sexually, but I didn't mention that one.:) She did say she was worried about him as she hadn't seen him for a while. Opening there as her ego would get a boost if he was and she could help etc. So she suggested meeting him on a friendly basis to see how he was as she did still love him "as a friend". That lasted about a month. New guy flipped out(insecure). Ex guy acted very calm and happy and was clearly moving forward in his life. Looked better, updated his wardrobe, was seeing other women etc and actually wasn't that pushed anymore(secure). red rag to a bull time. The upshot was her interest was peaked and her boredom went away when she thought what she had was leaving and that was stronger than her love for the new guy. They got back together and years later they're still together. He changed for the better though and is defo not boring and she's not 100% sure he will stay. 99% yea but the 1% stops the boredom I reckon.

It does illustrate somewhat how much this stuff is quite simplistic in button pushing terms at least generally. Maybe I'm just cynical though:)

ChocolateSauce

Wibbs wrote: »

I think zulu raises a bloody good point. I see this a lot in PI. The leave em mentality. I personally only advise that if the partner is abusive. I would probably advise it too with certain younger types say between 18-23 who start to really question the relationship. They will get bored and because they are told the world is at their fingertips(it's not), they'll likely beget an even more unhealthy relationship down the line if they stay. In a way they need to see their options for the most part aren't as expansive as they think. Best they don't wait around too long though or then it's facing down the barrel of 35 wonder WTF happened. Which is more true for women generally.

The world as has been said, has changed. What worked before doesn't now and we do have to adapt. The honeymoon period lasts anywhere from 6 months to(if you're really lucky) 4 years. After that it wanes. every single time(the only time I've seen it continue, in largely a forced way, is when one partner is obviously batting out of their league and won't let go and works on it). Apparently you can even see that with levels of certain hormones. Now we all kinda know this, yet ignore it with the next "one" as iancurtis clumsily put it earlier. Kinda like women who go through the pain of childbirth, it gets reset after the baby comes along and they'll have more pregnancies and labours after it. Some researchers reckon humans even have a built in mating period of 4/5 years.

In PI I've been accused more than once of simplifying this by saying its boredom. IMHO 90% of the time is just that. Boredom. Pure and simple. Yes it's dressed up in excuses, like falling out of love or others of that ilk, but boredom it is. I've seen people leave one person because they said it was issue X only to go off with someone right after with even more of issue X involved. I've even pointed this out, but they will deny it. Why? because of the novelty of the new.

There's also the biological aspect to it. What flicks people's switches both biologically and emotionally. It largely boils down to sexually in reality IMHO. Though the moon in june brigade dont like to hear that. When one person in a couple becomes sexually bored the relationship is on the way out and in need of serious work. Our biology works very subtly too. Look at the studies that have shown women who are on the pill when they meet their partners are something like 4 times more likely to dump them afet they come off the pill. Of course as other studies have shown women are attracted to different male faces depending on their fertility status. The other weird one that showed that lap dancers get twice as many tips if they're not on the pill than those that are. To the degree that it's known inthe business apparently. There's a lot going on.

I think that stuff hits hard at the start. If the relationship survives the first year then after that stage it fails through boredom. I would also reckon that IME women far more than men do the dumping in long termers.

+2

Extremely well put. Better than I managed!

Zulu

Cheers Wibbs, I was hoping you'd offer your opinion.

Wibbs

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

In the past people formed relationships for many reasons, but in the vast majority of cases it was not because they had a mature, stable, two-way relationship: It was because it was needed or expected of them, and because they didn't know any better. People know more today than they did in the past and I think society does not set unrealistic expectations on people, though they do set unrealistic ones for themselves sometimes.

Good points there. Funny I partially agree with you that people know more today. In my humble they only appear to know more. Kinda like very precocious or gifted children. Yes they appear adult and can explain many things away, but as far as actually knowing themselves or what they require to be healthy alone, never mind in a sexual partnership? I'm honestly not so sure. We have never had such knowledge at our fingertips as we have today. Google would have made plato's head spinning, but just because it's out there doesn't mean it's engaged except beyond the surface. Bringing a horse to water springs instantly. You see it in PI grown men and women asking for info on things that they should know but don't. Maybe there's just too much conflicting info now than ever before, or maybe people while clamouring for choice and options actually don't want them. IMHO there are more emotionally rudderless people about now than you would expect. There is a lot and I mean a lot of insecurity. Shít even buying a coat can reduce some to subtle inner turmoil; "is it the right fashion, will I be accepted, is it "authentic" etc.

I can think of two people I've known in my life that were secure, confident centered people. Of the ones who were close to that, I don't know one under 50. naturally you grow(or should) with the years, but looking at most of my generation I'm not so sure.

This impacts very much on relationships, friends, family lovers. I think a lot of the chopping and changing springs from this. Is my relationship authentic. Is it me is it them, Oh god it's me, run away and hope for better to make me feel secure. Dead loss that quest. You can see it in the patterns of types people go for. Women can be more obvious in this but men do it too.

Frankly I think inner thought now, is like many of our diets. The wrong thing and too much of the wrong thing. We think too much as much as we eat too much and like good nutrition we're rarely instructed what to absorb and use for our psyche. Everyday I see and meet people who think way too much about things the shouldn't and way too little about things they should be thinking about. Obesity for the soul and all the problems it brings. As well as a food pyramid, we need a soul/psyche pyramid. Then of course we have to follow it and like diet we need to exercise that psyche too.

Zulu wrote:

Cheers Wibbs, I was hoping you'd offer your opinion longwinded unsubstantiated rambling tripe.

FYP

SeekUp

Zulu wrote: »

However it occurs to me that, a generation ago, these people would probably have been married and starting a family by this stage. It occurs to me that two generations ago people managed to find "the one" in their local village, within two or three miles. It also occurs to me that plenty of other societies have arranged marriages, which have been very successful.

How did other generations manage this? Could they have been so lucky to find "the one" so close to home; were their parents such judge of human relationships that they could pick a life partner for their children? Or did they settle?

We should probably be careful of deeming relationships/marriage from previous generations "successful" just because the two people stayed together. Generations ago (or in other societies) things such as divorce and separation simply weren't (or aren't) available and/or acceptable options. As a result, people who were not happy would stay together just for the sake of it; not necessarily making a conscious effort to work out problems, just suffering through them. They didn't find The One; they just stayed with the one they found. In that respect, staying in the relationship isn't successful, it's just sad.

That being said, I do realize that it's a a different matter altogether to leave someone because a) you're bored and 2) because that's how we've come to deal with anything we're unsatisfied with. We've kind of overcompensated; now that the option to leave someone is easier (I'm using the word loosely), it's no longer imperative to work on a marriage/relationship. Why work on it when you can move on to something else? Other posters have mentioned these kinds of relationships as being a byproduct of our throwaway society . . . I'd also add that while we've gained a sense of personal empowerment and independence, we seem to have lost a bit of respect for our shared relationships.

metrovelvet

The pursuit of happiness can bring its own misery. We have ridiculous expecations of each other and of ourselves these days. It's just too too much to ask for from a relationship when even in life it is unattainable, at least in a permanent state.

For me, the final underlying determinant is this;it evolves or dies. There's a you, a me and an it, the it being the dynamic of the you and me together. If the it doesn't nourish and challenge both parties, both parties suffer and can't feed back into the it, and so it devolves and dies. When both parties find growth in their relationship, they can feed back into it, and it gives not only to the couple but outward into the community.

Wibbs

SeekUp wrote: »

. . I'd also add that while we've gained a sense of personal empowerment and independence, we seem to have lost a bit of respect for our shared relationships.

You see that's the bit I don't believe. I don't think we've gained a sense of empowerment and independence, especially emotionally. If a large proportion had, then healthy relationships would tend to follow as we obviously bring ourselves into every relationship. Yes we have the trappings of independence. We appear and are more independent with more apparent choices on offer, than generations before us but beyond the artifice and stuff in our lives many many of us are fundamentally unhappy. Depression anxiety, phobias etc are of nearly epidemic proportions. That low level neurosis of self affect relationships in a big way. I'm not saying we should be in a state of bliss all the time. Never gonna happen, but many appear to be in a low level state of confusion most of the time, ever looking for the next thing that may sate that confusion.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

The pursuit of happiness can bring its own misery. We have ridiculous expecations of each other and of ourselves these days. It's just too too much to ask for from a relationship when even in life it is unattainable, at least in a permanent state.

Even more of an issue when most don't even have a good definition of happiness. If you don't know what it is, then trying to attain it is a problem.

For me, the final underlying determinant is this;it evolves or dies. There's a you, a me and an it, the it being the dynamic of the you and me together. If the it doesn't nourish and challenge both parties, both parties suffer and can't feed back into the it, and so it devolves and dies. When both parties find growth in their relationship, they can feed back into it, and it gives not only to the couple but outward into the community.

I agree. I would put more stress on the me before I get into the us though. As you say a growing healthy relationship goes outward into the community, a growing healthy individual goes outward into the relationship first. It starts with the health of the individual.

Zulu

Wibbs wrote: »

Even more of an issue when most don't even have a good definition of happiness. If you don't know what it is, then trying to attain it is a problem

Thats exactly it. People are willing to quit perfectly viable partnerships in the belief (false or not) that they can achieve better.
However, when quizzed as to what better is, it's at best a vague ideal which is perpetuated by Hollywood, pop music, and a rose tinted memory of a teenage crush.
People haven't really thought it through to the end game, they just take the immediate information, consider that with some unproven modern concepts, and think they are making an educated and considered choice.

And end up unhappy, but convinced they are doing the right thing. I think Wibbs has touched on some excellent points. This might be the best choice for your sex life, but is it the best for your mental health? Who knows? What we do know is it's very traumatic.

Wibbs

Again to take the diet analogy, if you look at our ancestors diet and the peoples who live on the same diet today, most of the modern ailments simply dont exist or exist in much much lower amounts. Basically because the diet is what we're "designed" for.

You could say the same of many of the psyche issues too. There have been a number of studies into the mental health of hunter gatherers* and they have shown pretty consistently a distinct lack of depression, suicide, ocd, pnd, anxiety, mania etc when compared to modern society. Yet we're told much of this is genetic? They can have very stressful lives compared to our lives of luxury, yet live measurably "happier" lives. There are a few constants in their lives. Sense of family, sense of belonging, sexual relationships are more stable and longer lasting, reproduce early enough, large extended families and some spirituality thrown in.

Now like the diet I don't for one minute want to return to some halcyon age(it wasnt) and go all hippy dippy here. But in the rush forward we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I would suggest aiming to take the good from both systems and incorporate that as much as possible into our current lives. If we did then we would be healthier individuals and hence healthy sexual relationships would follow. Benefits society as a whole.

Dunno where one would start though. I suppose by trying to get people to realise that guess what, it could be worse ffs. If you're bored of an otherwise ok relationship that you've invested emotional energy and time into, maybe you're just boring and childish and always looking for a quick fix. Of course because I reckon so many are pretty lost about themselves they make bad choices to start with, so many are not even in a good relationship that could be built upon. Hard one.





*The only one I can find online has too much quackery attached so I wouldn't reference it here.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Even more of an issue when most don't even have a good definition of happiness. If you don't know what it is, then trying to attain it is a problem.

Well, with so many competing voices trying to tell you what it is, it is easy to get confused. I've settled for Aristotle's simple one: not suffering and accept that it cant last forever, or it wouldn't be so much fun. Nothing gold can stay.

johnnyskeleton

Zulu wrote: »

What is love?

Following on from the general trend in PI to advise people who question if they are in love to leave their partners, I've been considering if this is in fact good advice.
Generally speaking a poster describes living with their OH and loving them, just not being "in love" with them; that they are best friends with them; that they are comfortable with them however, things are different; things have gone stale; they have fallen from lovers to friends.
They further explore the possibility of leaving. Inevitably, the advice is: leave them, you don't love them, they deserve better/you deserve better. The over riding advice is not to settle.
People aren't happy because they can't find "the one".

However it occurs to me that, a generation ago, these people would probably have been married and starting a family by this stage. It occurs to me that two generations ago people managed to find "the one" in their local village, within two or three miles. It also occurs to me that plenty of other societies have arranged marriages, which have been very successful.
How did other generations manage this? Could they have been so lucky to find "the one" so close to home; were their parents such judge of human relationships that they could pick a life partner for their children? Or did they settle?

So, I'd like to open a discussion.

Has our society lost sight of reality? Do we have an unrealistic expectation on human relationships? Has modern society, and the global village provided us with too much choice, to detrimental effect? Should our PI gurus be changing their tune to: "settle! That's what the smart kids do."

I mean, if love isn't an divine emotion appointed by god(s), then if can only be a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions don't last forever (the honeymoon wears off) so whats left only a friend? Someone you love but aren't "in love" with.

The more education, culture & life experience you get, the less you are willing to tolerate the absence of education, culture & life experience in your partner. It's not that your expectations increase per se, more you become a more complicated person and thus find it hard to relate to someone not on the same wavelength.

anonymous_joe

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The more education, culture & life experience you get, the less you are willing to tolerate the absence of education, culture & life experience in your partner. It's not that your expectations increase per se, more you become a more complicated person and thus find it hard to relate to someone not on the same wavelength.

Good point actually.

I've never had a successful relationship with someone with whom I'd have had radically different beliefs about life, politics, etc. Things like that cause trouble. Also, there is a sense that if something goes wrong, it's not worth fixing. We've been taught to be selfish - look after number one. Thus, you might be having trouble with your OH whom you love, and the relationship is allowed die because it's not perfect.

johnnyskeleton

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Good point actually.

I've never had a successful relationship with someone with whom I'd have had radically different beliefs about life, politics, etc. Things like that cause trouble. Also, there is a sense that if something goes wrong, it's not worth fixing. We've been taught to be selfish - look after number one. Thus, you might be having trouble with your OH whom you love, and the relationship is allowed die because it's not perfect.

It's not so much a case of having different beliefs: a catholic and a buddhist; a capitalist & a communist; someone who likes cervantes and someone who likes Celia Ahearn can get along fine, indeed if they have enough in common in other areas, this little but important difference can be a good thing.

I'm thinking more of the:
A: What is the meaning of life?
B: I don't care to be honest.

C: Do you want to go somewhere off the beaten track for a holiday?
D:No, let's go to Spain with our friends.

E: Do you like Kafka?
F:I'm not that keen on spicy food.

That sort of fundamental misunderstanding can be fatal to a relationship. Yet there are lot of people who get into these relationships. A lot of the time, it's because people meet in pubs and nightclubs.

anonymous_joe

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's not so much a case of having different beliefs: a catholic and a buddhist; a capitalist & a communist; someone who likes cervantes and someone who likes Celia Ahearn can get along fine, indeed if they have enough in common in other areas, this little but important difference can be a good thing.

I'm thinking more of the:
A: What is the meaning of life?
B: I don't care to be honest.

C: Do you want to go somewhere off the beaten track for a holiday?
D:No, let's go to Spain with our friends.

E: Do you like Kafka?
F:I'm not that keen on spicy food.

That sort of fundamental misunderstanding can be fatal to a relationship. Yet there are lot of people who get into these relationships. A lot of the time, it's because people meet in pubs and nightclubs.

Ah I know. Sure I don't expect to be indentical to someone else. But you're right, the crucial differences can cause impossible differences.