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
.
