Long Term Relationships and their discourse!

I just checked up on Occam's Razor, and at its simplest it states:

I fail to see how this reductionism explains your view of long-term relationships.

On the triangular theory of love (awkward title I admit), it simply shows that there are different types of relationships with different elements to each - the ideal of course being conumate love which is composed of intimacy, passion, and commitment. Even then the "perfect" relationship can fail if not worked on. But as the writer put it, consumate love is hard to find, and people get tired of of waiting or seeking and settle for less than the ideal.

If by this you mean any of the other less than ideal "loves" or relationships, I would agree with you. They are nevertheless relationships even though when they are far from ideal.

Yes, it would appear so. After all, we form relationships as a means of meeting our needs - for sex, to be loved, cared for, companiosnhip etc. And the appeal of the relationship naturally wears off when those needs are no longer met by a partner.

What I think you should consider is that a romantic relationship are about mutual benefit, and are a reasonable compromise i.e. boy meets girl, girl wants to be with boy, and boy wants to be with girl etc, and both are very happy to meet each other's needs (and I dont mean just sex). Surely you're not suggesting that people form long term relationships with people they have little or no affinity or desire for.

For some time now, I've helfd the view that one must be "selfish" (by which I mean think only of one's own needs) when chosing a life partner, but as soon as the choice is made , the selfishness ends. From thenceforth, every decision is to be made with full conideration of the other person. There is now way a relationship will fail if both people in it always consider each other's needs - but first they must chose someone they like and feel comfortable committing to.

That said, its easy to see that two of the biggest problems with relationships are that:

(1) One of the parties starts to renege on his/her commitment (or vows in a marriage scenario), thereby breaking the contract

(2) People do change, and can later in life begin to want more than their partner can give, and may go outside the relationship to look for it (you guess what it means)

 

I should state simplest in a way in which describes our relationships: one based on selfish desire and commitment to fulfill these desires or devotion; devotion to loyalty, loyalty to one another, something that could be more than commitment. Triangular Love Theory explains itself in similar faction, in that, consumate love may near impossible to find considering our state of affairs.

Perhaps, loyalty can be seen as cerebral and maybe our selfish desires will override ourselves devoting to someone!? Of course, it is just a "theory" I have come to realise though tentatively examining relationships and our mode of reasoning to stay within them.

Of course not, that would be absurd given our ideals in these times, but consider this, arranged marriages have been around since the inception of marriage, which successfully helps contribute positively to the collective society. When I was a lot younger, I was even propositioned by family denomination to an arranged marriage to an French Moroccan, with time and devotion surely one can learn to desire someone else. Correct!?

Possibly, severe sexual desire will override the needs of our significant other, even to appeal to their needs in a commitment. May I suggest, that there is possibly an equilibrium between commitment and sexual rapacity!? With that, those with severe sexual displacements put too much emphasis on sexual rapacity for their commitments to exist!? Surely, these people have no understanding of devotion and are like jack rabbits when it comes to their desires.

 

I think, having read a summary from the last few posts, that there are some interesting questions to be had, for example

- is there a difference between the capacity for people who seek/crave sexual activity with a constant stream of new partners to maintain a commitment, and the capacity of those who have extremely high sex drives but desire to instead to know one person (at a time!) better and better sexually? Poorly expressed as my mind is on other things but I think there must be a distinction. In the former case you have someone addicted to sex for sex's sake, not that there is anything wrong with that, but it would be hard for that to be concomitant with commitment; in the latter you have someone who is addicted to knowing someone else on the most intimate and personal levels, and whose fully rounded attraction to that person includes the redblooded desire to know them completely in their sexual capacity.

- The idea that society can be stabilised by the creation of bonds which are functional rather than passionate is, of course, a true one, but how can it be squared with this (western) society's ideals of true love, endless passion and the need for companionship? Should we really prize commitment at the expense of passionate love? (although obviously realising that passionate love without commitment is not at a comparable level of that with commitment)

Ahhh I had another one but it's gone out of my head, maybe I'll remember when I check in later.

 

I am now feeling the need to comment even further...

you ask whether or not commitment and devotion can co-exist without the sexual tension and urges subsiding any of it at any given time, but how about this? Can commitment and devotion co-exist WITHOUT ANY sexual voracity? Surely there has to be at least SOME involved, right?

I believe you already know...

and, how is commitment necessarily 'interdependent' on devotion, or vice versa? You could be devoted to someone you are only having sex with, and will always have sex with out of devotion, but you still can cheat on them without the commitment being a part of it, correct?

And, what if you were committed to some chick you met in a bar somewhere (or wherever else you go) and developed feelings for her that weren't solely amatory, but you were more devoted to some other chick you only want to bang?

What would THAT say about your choice of people, let alone actions, thoughts, and values on love relationships?

Now, some people will tell you that 'Love conquers all', 'Love is forever', 'Love is real' and otherwise, but just because they speak of things in regards to love, keep in mind that they could be (more than likely) ONLY speaking on their individual perception of love, (like you are) but what about YOUR perception of love? Is YOUR perception more or less valid than theirs, and why?

To add, some people would say that such a question like this is naive to the realities of 'True Love', but as you should know, the definition of 'True Love' would have to depend on the true (and interdependent) values of love that the said couple or pair, have for one other, wouldn't it? This is where the many inputs on love get very sketchy. Since it all boils down to the elation you have for someone who makes you feel a lot less lonely (in ALL cases, no matter who says otherwise) there is no true definition of ANY love. What you define as love isn't how someone else will, and vice versa, so with THAT in mind, however you define commitment and devotion falls into the same place along with love. It all depends on how you define commitment and devotion.

 

Commitment and devotion would be mutually dependent on the factual elements within Consummate love. But most of our relationships today do not fall under the elements of consummate love. They do not fall under this element mainly because we have grown selfish, our pleasure based principle runs rampart. We almost violently seek sexual retributions by submitting our reasons to our passions.

Emotions are emotions and they will always play a part when we define our feelings to someone special, we of course have the "Triangular Love Theory",however, as the "Triangular Love Theory" asserts, there are laws governing this process like anything else. The components and discourse of relationships will give certain conviction. It is inevitable, we are then able to describe these elements in such a way which allows us to effectively understand our emotions. Commitment being interdependent to Love, and Devotion being interdependent to Loyalty realises our emotions in these relationships.

 

So we sacrifice passionate love in commitment!? If so, then we will always seek passion in our commitment. If it is endless passion that we seek, then, we surely have become selfish and narcissistic lot in our discourse. One can even conclude, this ideal is indeed destructive.

 

No, because you were the one who were using arranged marriage as a bond which can stabilise society, but which is inherently passionless because it isn't based on a personal attraction between the parties. I was bouncing off your own conclusions.
We have become selfish and narcissistic?! you don't say, 7Seven! Selfishness and self-preservation is absolutely fundamental to the human condition, don't pretend you can conclude anything different.

 

You miss my point completely, in that, endless passion doesn't persist in our discourse. It either forms an equilibrium with devotion, or dissipates and we cheat. But I see you couldn't pass on the opportunity to make frivolous remarks, maybe this conclusion escapes you.....

 

This rings very true to me, but if so, then WHAT is consummate love, and how do we define it, or achieve it?

So then, commitment, devotion, and loyalty are all interdependent on any level of love...

but, whether or not emotions are emotions, love is an emotion, despite what triggers it, whenever the sparks fly off in our 'anatomic' nerve center, or within our hearts, if not both.

With this said, I wonder what the true definition (or meaning) of love is to you.

 

I think it's interesting that you brought this to my attention. On a personal level, I believe the idea of interconnectedness and togetherness in love is untenable. At least, to the fundamental principle that I am able to understand it intellectually and perhaps I have reached the mental capacity to understand the inexplicable.

However, how could I define and give absolute meaning to such an emotion that is completely selfish and almost destructive!? For one, as an universal skeptic, I doubt all knowledge on the subject, emotionally, I want to believe it exist in such a way that is mutually dependent on togetherness on this principle to know someone absolutely one person at a time and loyalty; loyal to the fact that such a thing is possible. Not some underling salacity of passion, which dies out like a moth floating around a burning flame.

 

I would love to see you try and argue that all humans are inherently altruistic rather than self-serving.

 

If humans were completely selfish, than we would have never created marriage and formed a collaboration through civilization. The demands of your intellect missed this fundamental principle about human conditioning AND evolution: as much as there is a will to compete, there is a will to survive and one can not survive without collaboration. No, I think you meant love and most definitive meanings are self-serving.

Fairness demands we add something to the discussion, now, I will like for your to try to prove how the humanity would continue to exist if it weren't for collaboration, and we were completely selfish.

 

Ideally, intimacy in any long-term relationship (which for older people may be within the context of marriage) grows as people age. Some people, however, believe that intimacy is destined to fade with time, particularly where marriage is concerned. Loss of intimacy sometimes does occur, for a variety of reasons. Some couples find it difficult to maintain closeness in the face of life's sometimes substantial challenges. Others lose their sense of need for intimacy with the mellowing of passions that comes with years of living together. Still other couples experience a loss of intimacy because one partner has decided that finding emotional and physical intimacy with a new partner is easier and more exciting than working on solving entrenched difficulties with a long-term partner.

The challenges inherent in long-term relationships, however, usually do not lead to a loss of intimacy but, rather, to changes in the way intimacy is expressed. Society idealizes older couples who, after years of being together, still dance with each other, sit together, hold hands, and kiss. For most people, physical passion and romance are the most appealing of intimacies, but they, like other fires, only rarely are sustained with unwavering strength and intensity. Romantic expressions of intimacy may diminish in importance as couples confront the ordinary stresses of daily life. In many long-term relationships, romantic expressions of intimacy may be more the exception than the rule. Partners regretting that their relationships lack romantic intimacy or who are not as romantic as they were in younger years may have unrealistic expectations or may not be expressing their needs.

Long-term partners or friends may express intimacy in less public and occasionally even contradictory ways. An older couple may not reveal outward signs of affection yet do nearly everything together in quiet companionship. A couple may unwittingly preserve a sense of intimacy, such as when an overanxious partner or friend worries around-the-clock about the other person's health, while the relaxed partner seemingly ignores the worry and attention but does little to discourage it. Partners or friends may constantly bicker—neither conceding defeat nor settling their arguments—but their agreeing to disagree may be the very thing that sustains their relationship and helps them stay together.

Many couples—most without being aware of it—grow comfortable with alternative forms of intimacy that allow them to express familiarity, caring, or engagement with their partners in ways that are equally meaningful and more natural to their daily lives and personalities. Trust, empathy, communication, and the ability to depend on a partner usually grow in importance over time. These forms of intimacy are sometimes difficult for outsiders to detect, let alone interpret. Friends may find that intimacy and sharing experiences and thoughts increase over time.

Moreover, intimacy in long-term relationships must often be renegotiated at times of personal change. Events such as retirement, serious personal illness, or the death of a child or close friend can sometimes bring partners closer together. Other times, however, stressful life events can complicate a couple's feelings for each other, seriously challenge their ability to be intimate, change the way they are intimate, and even result in separation, divorce, or the breakup of friendships.

 

Most human collaboration is initiated by those with the desire to see themselves excel. People collaborate because it will benefit themselves (safety in numbers), so collaboration isn't a great example of why humans are altruistic.

 

Ohhh MissB, collaboration IS the result of the conflict between our instincts and our culture. Collaboration is the power of CONSCIOUS choice. It ensures one is not impelled down instinctual roads of action, but can search out and adopt a new solution to any dilemma. It permits artistic creativity and the opening up of new styles of life, and it even permits progress to human enlightenment. It is not "safety in numbers", but strength in numbers. However, I am not suggesting collaboration is completely "altruistic", it can lead to separateness; I am suggesting collaboration is not completely egoistic.

But you still haven't answered my question!

 

There wasn't any question except "so we sacrifice passion for commitment", which I already pointed out was a paraphrase of your own statement about arranged marriage.

No, it's not completely egotistic, because the point of it is that, for people with grand ideas, working with other people allows them to achieve THEIR great ideas more readily than if they worked as lone rangers. That makes them neither wholly selfish nor wholly altruistic (unless, as in some extremely rare cases, they have a desire to do such and such an act, make this or that progress to 'benefit mankind'. More rarely I think, though, that the people who make the greatest progress are those who are not readily social animals anyway - they might collaborate but they are those lone genii who conceive of amazing inventions or experiments which turn out to save millions of lives.

 

Particularly speaking, I wanted you to elaborate on this concept.

No, what I think you saw was there is no passion in the outset of arranged marriages and equated this to being an passionless existence. Again, you missed my pointed completely.

But haven't "advances" of civilization helped "mankind?" Truly, how many ideals in history could have been achieved without a collabration!?