proteanmix
Plumage and Moult
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 5,514
- Enneagram
- 1w2
I remember reading in some relationship book about healthy possessiveness.
I'm trying to figure out how to explain this. The way I think of this type of possessiveness is:
I care about you. You're occupy a place in my life that isn't a public space and I'm exposed. I can't just be open like this without some manner of protection. The ways I protect myself is saying I care for you and I'm willing to fight for you or show some signs of jealousy as a signal you're invested in the person and relationship. It's analogous to separation distress in attachment theory.
The author of this book thought it was a good thing. I think it's an expression insecurity and vulnerability because you've let someone in closer than anyone else. You don't want to be completely exposed and vulnerable, but it's an exhilarating and tempting feeling to let someone in that closely. Personally, I would still feel a need to protect myself. I just can't be that exposed. Maybe that's just something I will never experience, but that's scary as hell. Should we be that completely open to another person? It seems like you're giving that person a lot of power over you. But when I think about it, the thought of The Meld, the two become one is really appealing to me. I really like the thought of merging.
This is some of what Magic Porifean was getting at when he started this thread. I wouldn't want someone who is so detached and disinterested in what I do. I tend to look at these things in negative binaries. Watching my parents marriage, I've come to believe that I'd rather choose between what faults I can deal with because that's what's going to be the bane of the marital relationship once the shiny linoleum wears off. Fresh coatings tend to be put further and further down the things to do list. Actually I'm pretty obsessed with my parents marriage, it's really the only model I have.
Another vein along this line of thinking is is there a such thing as being "perfectly secure" about the strength of your relationship? Is a sign of this security allowing your SO take trips to Vegas every other month Is it a better or more meaningful sign of trust to your SO to let them be in places of temptation? So maybe this is more protectiveness than possessiveness?
Is "healthy possessiveness" legitimate?
Are signs of jealousy within a relationship necessarily bad?
How should vulnerability be expressed without it being labeled clingy, dependent, possessive, and/or jealous?
A counter:
It doesn't necessarily have to be marriage, but a long-term monogamous commitment to one another. And I think once that commitment has been made then maybe the other person does have a right to your person.
http://www.ylcf.org/newattitude/2-3/emotional-fornication.htm
I'm trying to figure out how to explain this. The way I think of this type of possessiveness is:
I care about you. You're occupy a place in my life that isn't a public space and I'm exposed. I can't just be open like this without some manner of protection. The ways I protect myself is saying I care for you and I'm willing to fight for you or show some signs of jealousy as a signal you're invested in the person and relationship. It's analogous to separation distress in attachment theory.
The author of this book thought it was a good thing. I think it's an expression insecurity and vulnerability because you've let someone in closer than anyone else. You don't want to be completely exposed and vulnerable, but it's an exhilarating and tempting feeling to let someone in that closely. Personally, I would still feel a need to protect myself. I just can't be that exposed. Maybe that's just something I will never experience, but that's scary as hell. Should we be that completely open to another person? It seems like you're giving that person a lot of power over you. But when I think about it, the thought of The Meld, the two become one is really appealing to me. I really like the thought of merging.
This is some of what Magic Porifean was getting at when he started this thread. I wouldn't want someone who is so detached and disinterested in what I do. I tend to look at these things in negative binaries. Watching my parents marriage, I've come to believe that I'd rather choose between what faults I can deal with because that's what's going to be the bane of the marital relationship once the shiny linoleum wears off. Fresh coatings tend to be put further and further down the things to do list. Actually I'm pretty obsessed with my parents marriage, it's really the only model I have.
Another vein along this line of thinking is is there a such thing as being "perfectly secure" about the strength of your relationship? Is a sign of this security allowing your SO take trips to Vegas every other month Is it a better or more meaningful sign of trust to your SO to let them be in places of temptation? So maybe this is more protectiveness than possessiveness?
Is "healthy possessiveness" legitimate?
Are signs of jealousy within a relationship necessarily bad?
How should vulnerability be expressed without it being labeled clingy, dependent, possessive, and/or jealous?
A counter:
It doesn't necessarily have to be marriage, but a long-term monogamous commitment to one another. And I think once that commitment has been made then maybe the other person does have a right to your person.
http://www.ylcf.org/newattitude/2-3/emotional-fornication.htm
