Over the last weeks I've talked to many people who opened up to me about their relationships. One common theme is that most people are miserable, yet they continue to live that way with some hope that it will eventually work out. This opens up a whole can of worms that would take a while to discuss; however, it illustrates a good point: some people are more comfortable in their misery than simply moving on.
This is true of my past relationships, specifically the last one. I was miserable for the last two-thirds of the relationship, yet I chose to stay in it. For what? The hope that it would somehow get better. And a lot of couples get stuck in this rut, hoping that one day something will automatically change and *poof* they will be happy. However, I don't think that's ever the case.
If two people are living in misery, nothing changes until one makes a decision to change it. I think that both have to be willing to change it for this to work. Because, lets face it, relationships can't work one sided. Its far better to leave the relationship, even 15 years into it than to live a lifetime of misery. You have to have a partner who is receptive to your needs and willing to accommodate them, within reason of course.
I think also that each partner is responsible for keeping up an attractive appearance, but also romancing the other partner. While I understand that the rush of emotions and hormones that was felt at the beginning of the relationship will soon subside, its necessary to keep love alive by doing things like date nights, vacations, salsa dancing, etc. I never want to lose my love of life because my partner has become a fat alcoholic who can barely breath and snores loudly. So I think that its each partner's job to not lose their attractiveness to each other.
Today I was reading in my Management book (love this class, BTW) about negotiation skills. And I realized that the same rules apply in relationships. There are three common mistakes made in negotiation:
1. Enter with a resistance point in mind. This refers to a business deal; its better to walk away than concede to something that you may not want or need. This can be true in relationships. Its better to have "deal breakers" (as one relationship book I read called it) that, when when these acts are committed, force you to walk away because that person displays behavior that is unacceptable to your life.
I assume that for relationship purposes I could call them boundaries that once violated are a turning point from that person. Just like with war, never go to without your rifle; never go into a relationship without your "deal breakers," boundaries, standards, etc. And love is a battlefield as Pat Benetar said!
2. Avoid becoming fixated on one particular issue. Aka don't get hung up on infatuation with the person that you're with. I'm sure that there are people out there who become infatuated with someone and eventually it evolves into a true love that lasts 50 years, but I don't think that most people are capable of that kind of relationship. I have to respect that there are forces stronger than me, hormonal, biological, natural, spiritual, etc that can make me become infatuated with someone when they are all kinds of wrong for me. That doesn't mean that I am not accountable for my decisions should become infatuated with a married man or a supervisor; however, it does mean that I am human and subject to certain temptations, but I have to live my life on the "straight and narrow" of right and wrong, knowing whats acceptable and whats not. It is actually humbling to know that, while I am still susceptible to wrong decisions, I am able to turn away from evil.
But by becoming infatuated with this person and not looking at them through the big picture, such as do their plans fit mine, are they the kind of person that I want to be with, are they taking my needs into consideration, are they versatile, am I the kind of woman that they need, I believe that one person is wholly making a mistake in life that will reap only pain and misery in the end.
3. The perhaps most important one to consider is: Do not assume that the other party has all the power due to greater levels of experience. Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! (Yes, there was a gravel slam every time) I am so guilty of doing this. Giving up my power in a relationship assuming that because he had more life experience (Jay), was a Staff Sargent (Ryan, Bobby), had lots of friends (countless many), played football (Clarke), etc, he was somehow superior to me and to my experience. Yes, I did assume that my ex, Clarke, somehow knew all the answers to life. I know, I know, I know. Dumb as shit, right? But in my defense, I was 18.
Quote: "If you assume that you are powerless in a negotiation, there is a good chance that you will act as if that assumption were true. You will be less apt to reach your goals. In truth, each party to a negotiation has some power--otherwise the negotiation would not take place. People negotiate because each party perceives that its counterpart controls something that it wasnts in an exchange. By being aware of both your interests and those of the other party, you can negotiate more confidently and increase your chances of reaching a satisfying settlement."
So I gave up all my power because I assumed that I had nothing to negotiate: no needs to be met, no intelligence to make decisions, nothing beneficial to give. Or if I did have something to offer, I thought that it wasn't very critical. I felt like the man was supposed to make me into something that I wasn't. I gave my mind over for him to make me into the person that I thought I needed to be... because I wasn't good enough. But I realized that even though I turn myself over for reinvention, the same person always comes back.
So from now on, I'm not assuming I'm powerless because I'm really not. I have money, a job, soon I'll have a place and my own furniture. I really don't need a man except for companionship. I liked the way that Liz put it. She didn't need a man for even sex or procreation because, in a free, technological society of vibrators, male prostitutes, single parents, and sperm donors, who needs any of that stuff anyway. Its solely for companionship that any modern woman would need a man. So, that's my power; and I need a man who can accept it. I have a feeling that I'll be single for a very long time since I'm 1. in the military with conservative, redblooded American boys, 2. in Oklahoma with the same type of male and 3. just too busy to fool with it.
But the reality is that I have things to bring to the table and the power to negotiate terms of the agreement. No longer do I have to worry about a man making these decisions for me, such as dowry, arranged marriage, and children. I can walk away from the table any time that I think that the companion isn't what I need them to be, anytime he isn't putting in his share of the work, which ultimately I guess is what a union would be. Two people putting their resources, physical, spiritual, emotional, and mental together to raise children in stability, be role models for the community, and live a good life together. Life is too good to live alone. And I feel that I somehow need to offer penance to all of the feminist role models before me, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, for my stupidity in the past, ignoring my power or using the wrong power to manipulate males.
Let's be honest, in the past I have used sex a tool to get what I wanted, even if for a short amount of time. I really just wanted love, to use the guys to get it, and then moved on. But that's not what I want anymore. I want someone who willingly gives, not that I have to manipulate or do back flips to get what I need. That too may take a while to find.
But if a guy's into a girl, he'll pursue her right? I don't want to deprive a guy of his natural instinct to pursue me, and he must "perceive that [I] control something that [he] wants in an exchange. By being aware of both of [our] interests, [I] can negotiate more confidently and increase [my] chances of reaching a satisfying settlement."
How does all this tie together? I've jumped through so many subjects. First, the point is that if a guy likes me, he obviously thinks I have something he wants, such as vagina, certain womanly skills, a relationship ability,etc. If I like him back, then I think he has something that I want. We talk about it, but if his wants (whether he makes clear through words or actions) are not what I want: a relationship, future, etc, then its a deal breaker. This is where point 1 comes into play. If he cannot meet my resistance point, I will walk away. Additionally, if I stay focused on whether or not he likes me, I lose track of the fact that he doesn't call or he only calls late at night or he cancels plans or whatever. So I focus on the whole thing. The Management book suggested moving on and settling other issues; while I did have a hard time figuring out how this applied, I thought of the maintenance guy and how I figured that he would make a good friend. So, maybe that's settling the issue of "lets just be friends."
And how does comfort in misery apply? Well, as I was reading all these concepts and thinking them through, I suddenly got scared. When I realized: this is sound advice, but it would never work for me. Why? I asked myself. I have all this knowledge at my fingertips! And knowledge is power! Why would I change? Why wouldn't I get up and move forward! Because, I told myself, it's easier to stay where I'm comfortable, even if it is in misery. But I think that I stopped buying that bullshit excuse: it'll never work for me, because I realized: I've been living in the same cycle of bad habits for so long. Its like a plumbing system that runs from your toilet (where you shit) and then runs through your kitchen faucet (drinking water) and then drains into pipes that run back to your toilet. Its an endless dirty cycle that makes me sick and doesn't bring any progress for my life.
There's a point where you can't stand your behavior anymore and throw your hands up in frustration! Today was that day!
No comments:
Post a Comment