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]

the concept might be much harder for a monogamist than a polyamorist, since a monogamist in a relationship which is making them only marginally happier can always wonder whether letting go and finding someone else might be a net benefit, whereas polyamorists have a greater ability to just find someone else without letting go.

Or possibly harder for a polyamorist, because they have to weigh up a whole host of possible options: if I go out with person B, will it damage my relationship with person A? Will A remain my primary but B become my secondary? Or do I want B to become my primary and A to become my secondary?

And poly people have the "grass might be greener on the other side" thing too.

None of the obvious suspects other people have mentioned (communication, clear agreements etc) seem to me to be necessary from first principles to make both partners happier in the relationship than out of it; I'm sure they turn out in practice to be helpful, but they still feel to me like solutions to problems which only might crop up

If you don't communicate with somebody at all, to what extent is it a "relationship"? (Genuine question!)

[simont]

If you don't communicate with somebody at all, to what extent is it a "relationship"? (Genuine question!)

I think when I said "communication" I meant it with the mythical capital C, in the sense of talking about Us and talking through Issues and Difficulties and emerging with the relationship stronger.

I'm sure there are people whose long-term, long-lasting relationship-looking-thing has survived for decades simply on the strength of things not happening to go wrong that need Talking About in that sort of way.

(Fair points about poly; I don't think I really intended to imply that poly people never had that sort of dilemma, only that there were some situations in which they had other ways to avoid it. Though I suppose in some cases that might merely turn a dilemma into a trilemma or worse...)

Re:

[j4.livejournal.com]

I think when I said "communication" I meant it with the mythical capital C, in the sense of talking about Us and talking through Issues and Difficulties and emerging with the relationship stronger.

I think a relationship can definitely have too much of that sort of "communication". If you're always talking about Issues and Difficulties, you're not actually getting on with having a relationship. Maybe this is just me? I've certainly more than once ended up feeling that I and $partner talk a lot about The Relationship, but don't have anything else to say to each other.

I'm sure there are people whose long-term, long-lasting relationship-looking-thing has survived for decades simply on the strength of things not happening to go wrong that need Talking About in that sort of way.

Hmmmm. I strongly suspect (though I could be wrong) that that sort of "it-just-works" success only happens if people do communicate -- and Talking About The Relationship isn't the only way to communicate. It's a feedback thing, and not all feedback is verbal. Does that make sense? I think it's dangerous to assume that "communication" == "talking" -- mostly because people draw false conclusions from that equation ("if we're talking, we must be communicating" and "if we're not talking, we can't be communicating").

I don't think I really intended to imply that poly people never had that sort of dilemma, only that there were some situations in which they had other ways to avoid it.

I think every type of relationship has some advantages and some disadvantages, really.

"Trilemma" is a great word, and should be used more often. :)

[simont]

It's a feedback thing, and not all feedback is verbal. Does that make sense? I think it's dangerous to assume that "communication" == "talking" -- mostly because people draw false conclusions from that equation ("if we're talking, we must be communicating" and "if we're not talking, we can't be communicating").

Yeah, that makes sense, and I don't think I'd disagree. It's just that, well, if you widen the definition of communication to the point where any successful relationship can be argued to have some, then it won't be a terribly surprising result if you end up concluding that every successful relationship has some! :-)

"Trilemma" is a great word, and should be used more often. :)

It was either that or "trichotomy", and Gareth's insistence that the latter ought to mean "haircut" is disturbingly convincing...