User Tag List

First 36444546

Results 451 to 453 of 453

  1. #451
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    What are the hoops? Be specific. I mostly see personality qualities & lifestyle choices listed, not specific actions to please. Either someone is or isn't a certain way. There's nothing to maintain against your own will.... I don't see what has to be sacrificed if you both are a certain way prior to the relationship. I pretty much meet everything on my list or the complementary traits, if you interpret the must-haves as loosely as I meant them (ie. no one is "considerate" ALL the time), or view the dealbreakers in the extreme sense I meant them (I mean "argumentative" as a defining trait where someone is truculent & creates a hostile environment, not moments of cantankerousness or even healthy debates, which I like).

    What's funny to me is, when women go for abusive losers who treat them badly & have harmful vices, then (some) men complain that women only like bad boys, "want to be treated badly", don't appreciate stable, intelligent, nice guys, etc. But then, when women have standards which oppose those traits, we're "too picky". Hmmm....
    I very rarely come on this site anymore so this may be my last response on this question. Also be aware that I have quite the cynical view of relationships in general however the issue is far outside of my current issues of importance and am evaluating whether conclusions like those I made above were excessively harsh.

    In regards to my reasoning at the time: The "hoops" in question would vary on the situation and the people in the relationship but essentially they would be whichever maintained the woman's happiness and whichever caused the woman's attraction to the man to continue. Situations vary and with it the measure of how much love is in the relationship e.g. a woman being with a man ultimately because he provides her with financial security and then determining him to be a less suitable partner if he loses his job or does not make enough money to give her the financial freedom she craves. Sure she may love him as a person but the man would not be all she loves, she has other needs that need to be fulfilled. Likewise a woman may like a man who spends time with her, empathises and listens etc. but the man may have less patience 2 years down the line for these things than at the beginning and/or the man may continue at the same levels but the woman does not need such things as much after a certain point and finds herself desiring something else which her partner perhaps cannot provide to a suitable amount. Needs can change over time, what was enough before may not be enough now; a women may have a strict list of what she desires but it would be a list which ultimately could become obsolete; opting for a partner who ticked all the boxes at the beginning but no longer as time goes on rather than accepting a less than perfect alternative who would provide an initially slightly flawed yet ultimately rewarding and sustainable long term relationship.

    In the end a relationship in a sitation like the examples given above would require an exponential increase in input energy from one or both parties in order for it to remain a sustainable entity, if the woman refuses to compromise or meet the man halfway then does that mean the man must bend over backwards more and more to satisfy her? Are women ultimately worth that much effort?

    Of course it isn't a simple issue. I don't really chase relationships myself as I a) have no value for it on the whole outside of bouts of loneliness and b) I would not care enough for it to desire to save it and would actually become annoyed if the woman bent over backwards to save it! Anything I mentioned above would apply to me and could apply strongly for most other men. Also, I stick to the assertion I made in a previous post that on the whole men do not need women in a relationship sense as much as women need men and that women should perhaps bear that in mind.

  2. #452
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    In regards to my reasoning at the time: The "hoops" in question would vary on the situation and the people in the relationship but essentially they would be whichever maintained the woman's happiness and whichever caused the woman's attraction to the man to continue.
    Most people continue a relationship based on love - an unselfish, principled kind. This means the value you recognize in the other person doesn't change according to conditions because it's based on the, er, essence of a person (for lack of a better word).
    (I'm going to qualify that saying it's within "reason" when it comes to conditions.) This replaces the more shallow, initial attractions. That's just there to make the bonding period smooth, because we need some kind of motivation to adjust to someone else. Too many don't adjust, don't really get to know someone, and so when that initial infatuation inevitably wears off, they're left with someone who they are unable to value on an intrinsic level. If you get to that point, then a connection is founded on something which conditions make harder to uproot (again, the qualifier - not impossible to uproot). Note that it's not really attraction now, but connection.

    Situations vary and with it the measure of how much love is in the relationship e.g. a woman being with a man ultimately because he provides her with financial security and then determining him to be a less suitable partner if he loses his job or does not make enough money to give her the financial freedom she craves. Sure she may love him as a person but the man would not be all she loves, she has other needs that need to be fulfilled. Likewise a woman may like a man who spends time with her, empathises and listens etc. but the man may have less patience 2 years down the line for these things than at the beginning and/or the man may continue at the same levels but the woman does not need such things as much after a certain point and finds herself desiring something else which her partner perhaps cannot provide to a suitable amount. Needs can change over time, what was enough before may not be enough now; a women may have a strict list of what she desires but it would be a list which ultimately could become obsolete; opting for a partner who ticked all the boxes at the beginning but no longer as time goes on rather than accepting a less than perfect alternative who would provide an initially slightly flawed yet ultimately rewarding and sustainable long term relationship.
    It's true that people & needs change, but when there is love, they can grow in the same direction. It's not like people wake up one day & find they have entirely different needs now & their partner is an entirely different person. It usually happens quite gradually (if the foundation was solid to begin with). In order to grow together, you do have to communicate & compromise at times. If you value anything enough, then you make room for it. It becomes a priority.

    This doesn't prevent self-actualization, but aids it. As you self-actualize, your ego becomes broader, so that adjusting to reality & the people & circumstances within it are not "hoops to jump through". They don't threaten your identity or personal fulfillment, because you don't have such a narrow experience/view of what those are. It's the ego kicking its feet at adapting, and that's preventing you from reaching potential, not someone else's needs.

    Ticking boxes is not the fulfillment people get out of relationships anyway. It's the intimacy & support & bond, etc.
    Much of what's on the lists are viewed as "signs" of inner qualities & tendencies, many of which help sustain something long-term, because all relationships will be flawed, usually more than slightly. Having cultivated these inner qualities to begin with says a lot - especially that someone is capable of them. Compatibility helps form bonds to begin with, and they can indicate a certain set point within each person. This makes surface changes increasingly less significant, because they are less & less the basis for the bond than the sort of "essence" of that person I mentioned at first.

    In the end a relationship in a sitation like the examples given above would require an exponential increase in input energy from one or both parties in order for it to remain a sustainable entity, if the woman refuses to compromise or meet the man halfway then does that mean the man must bend over backwards more and more to satisfy her? Are women ultimately worth that much effort?
    The question is not "women", but people. Outside of romance, the same maintenance occurs, perhaps at a lower degree. Unless you're an island and not a human, then it's self-destructive to ignore or deny this. The real question is - are YOU worth that effort? And I don't mean someone adapting to you, but YOU adapting to someone else for YOUR ultimate benefit. When you view it that way, then you're not giving up yourself for someone else, but you're building them up for the both of you.

    If you have a project of sorts, are you mad at it for the effort it requires? Do you resent it? You could take that attitude & then never manifest any talent/skill/whatever you have. You can stubbornly say, "this project may return nothing to me" & never do anything at all in life. Or you can see the value in the end product & enjoy the process, even if at times it takes a lot of energy, time, dedication & focus. In the end, who benefits? Who admires their own handiwork, who sees themselves reflected in it? Who has just flexed their talent/ideas/whatever & gotten a bit better as a person because of it?

    And it's not just "give/get", but dynamic itself. Relationships aren't a machine you oil from time to time. People compare them to "dancing" for a reason; it's flowing in the same direction & being flexible enough to move with someone else. Flexibility of the ego is a sign of being healthy, closer to self-actualization, more able to meet your own potential.

    If someone displays certain qualities to begin with, then the odds of them never wanting to compromise, always digging in heels, etc, becomes lower. That's why people have certain ideals to begin with. You're increasing your odds, basically. This person shows a certain set point + adaptability that's very promising. It's like taking on that project with great resources & materials.

    Also, I stick to the assertion I made in a previous post that on the whole men do not need women in a relationship sense as much as women need men and that women should perhaps bear that in mind.
    I realize you may not come back... But why this assumption? Historically, women have "needed" men more because they had little options outside of relationships with them, but then men seemed to make sure of such reliance, which makes you wonder who really needed who more... This modern notion that "women don't need men" seems to irk many men a whole lot too.

    I personally don't think either needs a romantic relationship more, but perhaps the needs within one differ. I don't think they're always opposed though.

    I'm going to say something terribly condescending now: you'll probably grow out of this (and it sounds quite 5ish). I was in denial of need in terms of people at one time too. I thought relationships took too much energy & blah blah blah. Then I matured a bit. But I was younger when I allowed myself to realize I was wrong, maybe cuz I'm a woman (condescension continues). I see you as devaluing yourself & your human needs more than anything. Turning women into soul sucking banshees is just a way of justifying it .
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  3. #453
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    i think oa nailed it.

    for me the biggest question unique to romantic relationships is the ability to be vulnerable. this requires a person willing to stay with their own discomfort enough to truly connect with themselves. this is what allows them to experience and share and relate to their own vulnerability--the basis for sincere, two-way communication. i need this because i know that in romance, in this current part of my life, emotional connection is my highest priority.

    relationships help you make space for someone else, and they and only they help you feel and come in contact with how spacious you could be (when your self gets bigger, when it gets yoked to someone else and takes on more responsibility to care in more complex ways). that demand for emotional openness is the catalyst. the relational process, brought about through a delicate balance of holding on and letting go, is the entire process of value-making. it is the destiny of the heart. it is the way through which we grow. it is what we do with ourselves through others and vice versa. it is how we practice both embodying and understanding who we are.

    and in my own estimation, the love of a good woman is second in value only to self-respect. most often they go hand-in-hand.

Similar Threads

  1. The Grand List of Anime MBTI Types
    By LunarMoon in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 1092
    Last Post: 12-07-2017, 07:04 PM
  2. [NT] The NT Females' List of Deal Breakers
    By Misty_Mountain_Rose in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 10-06-2012, 10:50 PM
  3. [NF] The NF Males' List of Deal Breakers (Rip off)
    By Yloh in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 05:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO