ITK

[j4]

I don't need to know, but I'm interested to know:

What (if anything) do people regard as essential for a successful relationship?

(I'm thinking more in the general sense than the personal -- I'm not really interested to know whether individual people couldn't possibly have a relationship with somebody who worked for Microsoft, or whether they need somebody who will accept and indulge their Swarfega fetish.)

Or do you think relationships are so individual that they're impossible to generalise about?

(20 marks.)

Further questions:

Do you think there's a (moral?) judgement implicit in a suggestion that anything is "essential" for a successful relationship? By stating the question in those terms, are we imposing our own definition of "success" on other people? (I'm assuming a broad context of Western culture; at the moment I'm not really interested in hearing, say, how the Mgosh tribe regard a "successful" relationship as one where the female bears twenty children and then eats her mate.) Or do questions like this merely make us disappear rapidly up our own solipsistic arses?

(40 marks.)

Note: You may define "relationship" as broadly as you wish, but please make your working definition explicit. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.

Comments

Re:

[j4.livejournal.com]

you need someone who a) doesn't offend all your deeply-held beliefs (politics, religion, food, operating systems, whatever) and b) will accept the things that make you tick

*nod* I didn't mean that sort of thing wasn't important, I just meant I didn't really want people's personal specific kinks/squicks.

Sub/sub is probably doomed to failure, passivity and apathy. ;-)

Only if you assume that the sub/sub relationship is the only relationship in which both subs participate (and/or the only context in which they indulge their subby tendencies)...

Re:

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, but sub/sub on their own seems like it would be frustrating at best. ;-)