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]

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...