loving and needing someone

[redpepper]

If love is a need and we find that in each other, is it okay to need someone or someones?

It seems that a lot of people search for love in someone and need to find them and then when they do, its considered unhealthy to need them. Why is that?

[AutumnalTone]

The whole hierarchy of needs (thank you, Mr. Maslow) are things that are important to humans. Working to address each of those needs, in turn, is the mark of a healthy human--as long as those needs are addressed in a healthy fashion.

Problems arise when a general need--that of companionship--gets corrupted. We have a need for companionship and we fulfill that need by finding companions. When we treat that general need, instead, as a need for a specific person--instead of recognizing that many other persons can provide what we need--then the fulfillment of the need is twisted and dysfunctional.

So, there's nothing wrong with needing other people and relationships with them, whether romantic or platonic or varying in wild and wondrous ways. There is something wrong with perverting that general need into a need for a specific person. Even within a relationship, while one needs a partner or partners to fulfill the need for companionship, it's only healthy if one can walk away if the relationship(s) become(s) toxic.

While one should want a specific partner, that desire should rest on a foundation of only wanting that partner if the relationship is healthy. If it turns otherwise, then the desire for that person should flag and one should be able to walk on. If one *needs* that person in spite of the toxicity of the relationship, then there's a major problem. That form of need is unhealthy.

[MonoVCPHG]

There is something wrong with perverting that general need into a need for a specific person. Even within a relationship, while one needs a partner or partners to fulfill the need for companionship, it's only healthy if one can walk away if the relationship(s) become(s) toxic.

.

I think you lost me on this one my friend. Lots of people have one person to fill a specific need; especially romantic/intimate ones. Are you saying that most monogamous people, have perverted the need for physical intimacy because they only need it from one individual? I'm specifying most here because I wouldn't want to represent all monogamous people as some merely live monogamously while others truly are monogamous. I think I musunderstood your point. Sorry for that.

I totally agree with you that if a person stays in a relationship that is toxic to fulfill a specific need you definitely have a problem.

[AutumnalTone]

Are you saying that most monogamous people...have perverted the need for physical intimacy because they only need it from one individual?


Nope. They have the need for a bond with only one person, and that's perfectly fine. It's only perverted if they think they need one, specific person *to the exclusion of any possible other*--that there's only one possible person who can meet their need. Whether somebody feels a need for one partner or many, when the need gets twisted to where only a specific person or persons can meet the need is where the problem arises.

So, your need to have a single pairing is good and healthy. Redpepper meets your need. There are also other possible partners who could meet your need, though, and the realization that such is the case is a sign of a healthy relationship. Should the relationship turn sour, you could walk away knowing you can meet somebody else to meet your need.

Were you to say that only Redpepper could ever meet your need is where the warning flags would begin waving. That would be twisting your general need for a romantic pair bond into a dysfunctional obsession with Redpepper. That sort of thinking is what keeps people in bad relationships and what drives stalking and other psychopathologies.

Did that clear up the concept? General need is good; specific obsession is not.

[MonoVCPHG]

Gotcha my friend. Needing only her is healthy but the idea that there could never be anyone else to fill that need for the rest of my life, regardless of circumstances, is unhealthy. If that were the case I would be destined to be alone forever if she left me or something happened to remove her from my life.

I totally get that!

Thanks for clearing this up.

[AutumnalTone]

Problems arise when a general need--that of companionship--gets corrupted. We have a need for companionship and we fulfill that need by finding companions. When we treat that general need, instead, as a need for a specific person--instead of recognizing that many other persons can provide what we need--then the fulfillment of the need is twisted and dysfunctional.


There's also the related problem of dysfunctional need that leads to entering relationships that clearly aren't healthy--of wanting somebody so badly that anybody who exhibits any interest becomes acceptable, whether or not it's a good pairing. I think this sort of dynamic is at play when most people speak of somebody being "too needy."

So, if Jane wants a romance with somebody because she feels the human need for companionship, that is good and healthy. If Jane feels the need so strongly that she'll hook up with anybody who chats her up, without considering whether it would be a good relationship, then she's needy in a dysfunctional sense.

I see this in action frequently. Anybody who needs to be involved with somebody--seemingly anybody--presents as desperate. They're really only ready for relationships when they reach the point that they want a healthy relationship and aren't looking to jump into one at the first sign of possible interest. It's when they can consider whether a match could be good for them--and pass on a match that doesn't appear to be good--that they're dealing with a need in a healthy fashion, instead of being "needy."

[AutumnalTone]

Thanks for clearing this up.

Not a problem. We can only discuss it by understanding what's actually been said. If I write something that's difficult to wade through, I have no problem trying to explain it more clearly.

[MonoVCPHG]

There are a lot of examples of the type of unhealthiness I think you are referring to. Physically abusive relationships, co-dependant relationships where one person manipulates the other through their weaknesses such as addiction. I think we have all seen people go down a path of destruction in trying to fill a need desperately. Usually this is because they are not connected to themselves I think.

After splitting up with my ex wife I went down a path where I thought all I needed was sex. I almost slept with some one who was completely unhealthy out of sheer belief that this was a need and what I was supposed to do. Luckily my body said no and my mind regained control. That was a very low point for me but out of it I grew immensely. I also explored casual sex and found that I didn't "need" sex just for the sake of it. All of this lead to me being prepared to love and "need" Redpepper in a healthy way.

I have found something very specific in Redpepper; complete trust and the ability to share my darkest thoughts and history. I do feel this would be extremely hard to find with any one else. While I don't consider being this open a "need" with every one, I do consider it a need to reach the level of depth I have with her.

So I guess my "needs" are very individual based.

Hmmm..great topic Lilo!!

Thanks for pushing my thoughts on this Seventh Crow :)

[crisare]

I think one of the first discussions I participated on here was this one:
http://polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1537

It was interesting to me that some people very much disliked using the word "need" in conjunction with a romantic relationship or individual.

[redpepper]

Another point: If we are talking Maslow, then I would suggest that love is one of the hierarchy of needs. Maslow doesn't talk about love on his pyramid (http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm) but I think it goes somewhere in with physiological needs/security needs personally. Of course I have no idea, I am flying on the seat of my pants here, but to me it is at the very base somewhere of how I function.

If what I am saying is the case then I would suggest that some people struggle to be able to function because their needs are not met in terms of receiving the love that they need. Maybe this is a definition of love thing, but it seems to me that we are brought up these days, most of us, with a roof over our head and food and water, most of the basic needs met. Sometimes to access. Some people live in overly large houses and eat way too much... blah blah blah,,, but ... it seems that societially we are creating ways to destroy loving one another which means that perhaps our need fo one another is more obvious: be it by not communicating efficiently, by maintaining a facade that to the outside world that looks like we are really "together" on things with our partners, by being too busy to spend time together, by trying to find our needs met in cheating/affairs, whatever.

Just as I said in my thread intro, we quite often are told that we are not to need each other and let each other love one another. I think it's perfectly okay to need each other, we are social creatures and need to feel wrapped in love in order to help us function properly. We need to give love also. Not just in terms of poly relationships, but in terms of loving the world in whatever way we can.

I watched the little drummer boy tonight with my son. That old one from my childhood where the drummer boy follows the star and takes his lame lamb to the kings to see if they will help him... they can't but say that he should look at the baby in the manger as he is the king of kings... the drummer boy feels inadequate as he has no grand gifts, but plays his drum instead. I told my son that he was playing his drum because that is what he is good at and that that is all that is required in life is to be everything we are and we will receive love and joy from it and be able to give that to the world. The lamb is healed and his heart is filled with joy.

The baby Jesus, and I'm sorry to use him as I know that a lot of people aren't into that, but as an example, is a symbol of pure love and what love can do to change the world, in my view.... the drummer boy and his lamb is a symbol of a boy with hurt, pain, poverty.... etc... he needed some pure love in order to be able to function in the world. In order to be healed in the form of his lamb being healed.

It seems that many people loose sight of this message.

I didn't actually see the little drummer boy before I wrote this thread, but it has something to do with it for me. :)

[redpepper]

I watched the little drummer boy tonight with my son. That old one from my childhood where the drummer boy follows the star and takes his lame lamb to the kings to see if they will help him...

this is much like a journey to self discovery....

they can't help him but they say that he should look at the baby in the manger as he is the king of kings...

look inside himself to find the way?


the drummer boy feels inadequate as he has no grand gifts, but plays his drum instead.

All he can do is be himself to the best of his ability?

My husband was suggesting tonight that perhaps love is not the thing that is needed but connection to one another. It seems that as a back lash to the stifling relationships of our ancestors we now take it to the other extreme it seems in society and that is we see needing others as a weakness sometimes.

[MonoVCPHG]

Pendulums swing. We see this all the time. Usually they go from one extreme to the other before settling in the place where they belong...in moderation.

The pendulum itself is usually pulled by strong vocal and influential people or groups on either end. Sometimes those people don't follow the pendulum as it settles and stay firm in their position...the remainder finds that moderation and establishes the place of peace and comfort where the majority reside.

[GroundedSpirit]

Hi RP,

Well - that is indeed an interesting question and for myself will have to do some real thinking to clarify my own thoughts. I don't know that I've ever seen that question posed in quite that manner.
Because of my own background in Eastern thought, the term "need" may have slightly different connotations than to some others. To me, "need" has pretty much been dangerous, potentially negative thing. We have basic needs of food, shelter, safety etc for survival. Beyond that, identifying any large number of "wants" as "needs" puts us on the edge of a slippery slope where it's easy to lose the distinction between what are truly physical needs. It's the beginnings of being "needy", of forming what are commonly termed "attachments", which can have profound negative consequences on our well being.
Your question seems to lead to a question of "is there such a thing as a 'healthy' need" (beyond the basic survival needs). It's interesting to toss some form of love or companionship into that mix because we view those terms as generally "positive". But by accepting anything as a "need" we are granting it the power of dependency. And dependency is a dangerous position to be in.
But are they ? Truly ? They are definitely "wants".
So, it's an interesting thought !

Happy holidays to everyone !

GS's

[GroundedSpirit]

Pendulums swing. Sometimes those people don't follow the pendulum as it settles and stay firm in their position...the remainder finds that moderation and establishes the place of peace and comfort where the majority reside.

Yeppers, and sometimes the MAJORITIES stay stuck to their sides and refuse to settle :) <wink>

[redpepper]

But by accepting anything as a "need" we are granting it the power of dependency. And dependency is a dangerous position to be in.

That would be an interesting thing for you to think about then. Where does love fit in to that? Where does anyone fit into that besides the self? I would suggest that love/connection/togetherness with others is just as important as other basic needs.

When I see people on the street I think of this topic as their lives are down to basics. Having worked with this population I know that one of the most important keys to survival is each other out there. Having food to eat, protection for their bodies and each other is essential.

[Ceoli]

Humans definitely have a fundamental need to be connected with those around us. Our very ability to live with each other is determined from the experiences of our earliest days. I used to work with kids who had been in orphanages from their earliest days. These kids received no affection as infants and toddlers and now that they are older, they are fundamentally unable to feel empathy or connect with other human beings. In that case the need is very real and very important.

For me, that connection is definitely a need, but it's a need that can be fulfilled in so many different ways. Romantic love is one of them. I can definitely say that when I feel that kind love, it provides an enrichment to my life that I seek and move towards when it's there. But I've gone through long enough stretches of not having that kind of love in my life to know that I can seek my happiness in other ways of connecting.

I've also learned that when my love for someone starts translating into needing them, it starts to cast a shadow on the love we share. It starts to cage that love in ways that strain my feelings. When I feel need for someone, it starts feeling like possession. I've found that the whole "when you love someone, set them free" really applies for me. The love I feel is so much more nourishing when I let it go.

That said, there are moments of grace in life when experiencing love from another person somehow sets something free in yourself. Sadly there are far too many people in the world that never experience such grace. Some manage to find their freedom despite that, others remain trapped. (I think that's why I like Dickens' A Christmas Carol so much- its really about a moment of grace that allows a man to set himself free from the pain that held him down)

[LadyMacbeth]

Being really into attachment theory, I have to add that a guy named John Bolby followed my Mary Ainsworth and others (Heinz Kohut, on and on) have written reams about how attachment is an intrinsic need...and their work has fundamentally impacted how I view love and the concept of "neediness." We're programmed as humans to seek proximity and "need" proximity when in distress or having other strong emotions. It's something we shrinks call "healthy dependence" as opposed to unhealthy, as mono discussed (abuse, codependence, etc.)

[AutumnalTone]

Being really into attachment theory, I have to add that a guy named John Bolby followed my Mary Ainsworth and others (Heinz Kohut, on and on) have written reams about how attachment is an intrinsic need...and their work has fundamentally impacted how I view love and the concept of "neediness." We're programmed as humans to seek proximity and "need" proximity when in distress or having other strong emotions. It's something we shrinks call "healthy dependence" as opposed to unhealthy, as mono discussed (abuse, codependence, etc.)

I rarely remember the names of the folks whose works I've read (or whose work has been discussed in something else I've read), so it's quite nice to have somebody else around who can provide references. And probably explain things more clearly than can I. And have absorbed a greater breadth of material than have I, given that psychology has always been a secondary study for me. Speak up on the differences between healthy and dysfunctional dependence, please.

[LadyMacbeth]

Speak up on the differences between healthy and dysfunctional dependence, please.[/QUOTE]

Oh, lots to be said. I suppose it can be summed up in the difference, discussed by Ainsworth and others, between "secure attachment," and "anxious attachment" and "dismissive" attachment styles, as well as "disorganized attachment." Wiki has a nice overview at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory

Overall, I believe that "healthy" is a balance between allowing oneself to need another, as well as having a full and healthy sense of independence in a balanced way. In other words, equally valuing attachment and individuation as core internal needs. So...a "healthy dependence" has a balance of both, an "unhealthy dependence" would involve either focusing on individuality/individuation at the expense of connecting deeply with others (eg being disconnected, nonemotive, unaware of emotions, etc) *or* focusing on attachment/connection at the expense of the self (eg staying in an abusive or controlling relationship out of fear of losing the loved other.)

Of course lots more could be said...

[redpepper]

Thank you so much for going in this direction! I was thinking of mentioning attachment theory as its how I am raising my boy. Connection hand in hand with independence.Speak up on the differences between healthy and dysfunctional dependence, please.

Oh, lots to be said. I suppose it can be summed up in the difference, discussed by Ainsworth and others, between "secure attachment," and "anxious attachment" and "dismissive" attachment styles, as well as "disorganized attachment." Wiki has a nice overview at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory

Overall, I believe that "healthy" is a balance between allowing oneself to need another, as well as having a full and healthy sense of independence in a balanced way. In other words, equally valuing attachment and individuation as core internal needs. So...a "healthy dependence" has a balance of both, an "unhealthy dependence" would involve either focusing on individuality/individuation at the expense of connecting deeply with others (eg being disconnected, nonemotive, unaware of emotions, etc) *or* focusing on attachment/connection at the expense of the self (eg staying in an abusive or controlling relationship out of fear of losing the loved other.)

Of course lots more could be said...[/QUOTE]

[redpepper]

I love the word grace. It is this grace in love that I think can be achieved daily when around those who love us completely and us them. That is a need I have, yet I will do as I will as well. To me my live is complete when I have connection and independence. I don't mind letting the chance for sexual connections slide into nothingness when I have so much of loves grace in my life already.

It never fully occurred to me until this year that its possible to be connected to men and ask for connection to men without having sex with them. I ask for that now but kind of am waiting to see if its possible to be that close without physical connection.

[GroundedSpirit]

Overall, I believe that "healthy" is a balance between allowing oneself to need another, as well as having a full and healthy sense of independence in a balanced way. In other words, equally valuing attachment and individuation as core internal needs. So...a "healthy dependence" has a balance of both, an "unhealthy dependence" would involve either focusing on individuality/individuation at the expense of connecting deeply with others (eg being disconnected, nonemotive, unaware of emotions, etc) *or* focusing on attachment/connection at the expense of the self (eg staying in an abusive or controlling relationship out of fear of losing the loved other.)

Of course lots more could be said...

Hi Lady,
As you lead in with - this is YOUR belief (system). And it's one proposed by the "attachment THEORY".

Mine is simply different.
I have many issues with this thinking for myself. Others obviously are free to choose their own comfort level & direction.

First, but not least, is the understanding that all of this is "scientific THEORY". That should be 'nuff said" for anyone familiar with modern science. Note that I'm one who has had heavy involvement with science from an early age so that's not a "dis" from some blind religious or spiritual perspective. While having certain value when understanding childhood early development, I personally don't feel it can be carried largely unmodified into adults. That devalues our mature cognitive abilities.

Second, and as an example, I'll take a quote I went and clipped from the Wiki entry on Attachment in Adults entry.

(representative statement):"I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me."

This is proffered as "healthy".

As someone who has been on both ends of this, I can state absolutely that I'm NOT (any longer) comfortable with this statement/proposition for one second ! I'm not comfortable putting myself in a position that anyone or anything is solely dependent on me for functioning. Nor will I condone it.
By the same token, I realize I have certain dependencies in my own life that are less than optimal. I try to minimize them whenever possible. However, I'm no master and I'm fully aware that I will probably not ever strive for 100% success in this regard. I remember seeing this expressed once as "our controlled folly". I thought that was accurate and pertinent. Most of us make such decisions frequently - that we're fully aware are not necessarily in our own best interest. We make them anyway and tell ourselves we're willing to suffer the consequences. And we usually do :(
So I leave this with the full acknowledgment that dependencies DO - and always will - exist. The plants DEPEND on the sun. We DEPEND on the plants. Etc etc And we know what happens when these dependencies fail. We suffer - or cease to exist. So THAT is the CHOICE. For me it's a call to choose wisely and minimally - unless of course I form an attachment to suffering. And yes - some do that.

GS

[redpepper]

I have never thought of attachment theory in terms of adults actually. I think that children "need" adults to form bonds with and learn from or with... in order to become independent. They need to achieve their independence before going out into the world to make other connections with that knowledge that they are responsible for themselves... they do this by first connecting with the adults around them... I breast fed my son for three years to give him a good foundation for him to be able to be independent. I think far too often we push kids out into the world to be independent before they are ready. Holding them close when they "need" it is important to them becoming self sufficient. I can totally see how that would work with loving adults. We are, by our very nature, interdependent to others, the planet as a whole. That is where the depth comes in our relationships.

Some adults were pushed into independence too early as children and can regain that "need" for closeness again in their adult lives in order to take steps to independence more healthily rather than be pushed into it. Kind of a stepping back exercise.

I was breast fed as a child for a few months and then my mum went into the hospital for a few months. I was given to a neighbor who let me cry and cry and cry. I cried myself to sleep and cried with my bottle in my hands... why? because I NEEDED MY MOTHER. Now look where it has got me. I have a terrible relationship with my mum and believe I wouldn't if I had that need fulfilled as a child. It is the root to all my abandonment issues. I "need" people to help me believe I won't be abandoned.

I don't see any reason why we should believe we are not responsible for others. Participating in/with others lives and self journeys. I work with adults at my job that will never reach complete independence but it's up to me to ensure that they have freedom, together with my support, in order to work toward their independence. I do this with everyone I am close to.

My partners rely on me to walk by their side when it comes to their struggle to be independent/self actualized/self aware/confident/self esteem... (all go hand in hand it seems). I feel I would be doing them a disservice if I simply said and thought they should do it all alone because they are suppose to be independent. They know that I will hold them close when they "need" that as a way of working stuff through.

For example: we rent out an apartment in our basement. My husband has a hard time dealing with people when he is seen as an authority (remarkably he is very good at it and has been in management often as a result...) and because I know that he often "needs" me to take over where the tenants are concerned so as to help him not be overwhelmed ... that means I simply make myself available when he says he is struggling and asks for help or asks me to take over.

This is something he works on, so to step in and just take it over would not be helpful to the work he is putting into himself. When he does put the effort in and it IS overwhelming he has been known to break down in my arms and sob from the sheer emotion of it all. I see no problem in holding him and loving him and talking to him with loving words like "you should feel very proud of yourself, you did really well at that." I do the same thing with my child and others. This to me is attachment theory in practice. He "needs" me to help him through stuff in order to gain independence for himself.

I have seen this work with him as I have known him for 14 years and remember a time when he was a complete introvert and terrified of interacting with others. He had a partner who he allowed to have complete control over him. They were completely co-dependent in terms of her "needing" to control him to make herself feel good and he to allow that to not have to deal with his issues.

I feel proud that he "needed" me to walk by his side and hand control back to him when he gave it over to easily... to rely on me to take it when he was overwhelmed. It's a fine balance. I have been there for him all these years and he with me when I needed to know he wouldn't leave no matter what. It's what gives our relationship depth. Could he of done it on his own? probably. Could he of done that with someone else? probably. Did he want to need ME? and trust ME? yes. I think that in terms of unhealthy "needing" is when one thinks that it is that person ONLY that is "needed," not loving, caring, patient, empathetic people in general that we can chose or not chose

We need each other to rely on in terms of having safe space to break down, be completely vulnerable and ourselves in order to be able to go out into the world and work on our issues and baggage. This is "needing" others to me. I "need" others to have that kind of connection with. I "need" Mono to pet my head when I drift off to sleep after a long day... could I do without it? sure! I can fall asleep with out his head pets. I could fall asleep with someone else petting my head possibly. Can my husband deal with our tenants without being able to come to me and sob because it has been overwhelming? sure he can and does... the thing is that it is easier and we get through things better when we rely on each other for that support. We have chosen each other to do that with... their could of been others we chose and may still be others, but right now this is who we have chosen to "need."

I know some people who don't have anyone to "need" and they carry tons of baggage around that I doubt they will ever have the chance to work on because they feel they would in some way not be independent if they admitted or realized they "needed" help with it. Sometimes they just don't know how to "need" others too. I find THAT more unhealthy than my "need" for snuggling up to Mono and getting my head pet so I know he loves me and won't leave.

Getting my head pet takes me back to a place of the innocent "need" I had as a child and my dad pet my head. I feel in those moments that the slate is clean, there is a sense of untangledness. I feel like I am worthy of love and won't be left behind. I like to give that space to people I love and I like to have the opportunity to be in it myself... I'm sorry, I feel no negativity in terms of unhealthiness in that.

as an aside: I find this sense of "need" sometimes in terms of BDSM, I find I offer that same feeling of... whatever that is...when I dominate others or am dominated. Things become untangled, raw, the slate is clean... does that make sense? It's controlled control.

[GroundedSpirit]

Should we make any distinction between the words "need" vs "strong desire" when we have discussions like this ?
Because at least for me, my thoughts would differ significantly if what we defined as "need" could be nothing more than "desire". Because the effects of lacking it could differ exponentially.
What are we REALLY talking about here ?

[rolypoly]

I've also learned that when my love for someone starts translating into needing them, it starts to cast a shadow on the love we share. It starts to cage that love in ways that strain my feelings.

I share this Ceoli. There is a pivotal point when a relationship becomes defined and I begin to expect things. I don't know where this comes from, but I am trying to avoid it this time around. I suddenly panic and start finding every way the person is wrong and bad. It's all based on fear.

When I can stay just a little bit distant, then I can keep reminding myself that my partner is not a terrible person and in need of caging just because s/he can't anticipate my needs. I find this part of myself very scary.

[redpepper]

Should we make any distinction between the words "need" vs "strong desire" when we have discussions like this ?
Because at least for me, my thoughts would differ significantly if what we defined as "need" could be nothing more than "desire". Because the effects of lacking it could differ exponentially.
What are we REALLY talking about here ?

I'm not sure what you mean GS, "need" and "desire" are different no? well I suppose they could be seen as similar also. What is it about, that you need a distinction between the two?

Lets say we did replace "need" with "strongly desire," what would the difference be to you?

[redpepper]

There is a pivotal point when a relationship becomes defined and I begin to expect things. I don't know where this comes from, but I am trying to avoid it this time around. I suddenly panic and start finding every way the person is wrong and bad. It's all based on fear.

When I can stay just a little bit distant, then I can keep reminding myself that my partner is not a terrible person and in need of caging just because s/he can't anticipate my needs. I find this part of myself very scary.

How does it happen that your expectations become a means to define someone as wrong or bad? Where does the fear come from? What are these expectations that that happens???!!!

That makes me very sad that you distance yourself because of this roly :( why should anyone anticipate anyone's needs??? There should never be expectations really... at least this is a noble goal as far as I am concerned. If people are communicating well then there should be conversations around expectations that start with, "I have and expectation,,,, and here it is... this is what I want to see happen, is that a possibility? What do you think about my expectation?"

How does all this make you want to "cage" someone roly? Yes, I would be scared of that too if it were in me... ! :eek:

I'm so respectful that you are bringing this all up as that is hard shit to work out! Good for you for even broaching it here! :o

[Ceoli]

I don't know about how it works for Roly, but for me, too much need does start caging the love I feel. It constricts it because when I need a person like that, it suddenly becomes detrimental to not have that person, which creates a huge perception of risk and fear. If the love I feel starts moving too far into need, then it just becomes about me and my preservation and not about my partner. I then need my partner to be all these things or do all these things in order for me to be happy. And if my partner isn't those things to me or doesn't do things, it creates unhappiness. That never feels healthy to me because it means that I'm holding someone else responsible for my emotions and not taking responsibility for them myself.

Feelings are funny things. They change more from internal shifts than from external shifts. A person can feel compersion and love for their partner one day and jealousy and anger another with no change in how their partner is being towards them. So for me, unhealthy need starts to happen when we let go of our own responsibility for our emotions and put them in the hands of our partner. That's not the same thing as having deep love for a partner. That's also not to say that a partner can't hurt me deeply by what they do, but I will always own those feelings.

And also, I don't consider that kind of toxic need the same as understanding what needs we have ourselves as individuals and seeking out partners who meet those needs. When we seek such partners, we're still holding that responsibility ourselves. But if i said "This is the only person who can make me happy", well...that's just scary. For me, and for the other person, since nobody can really be entirely responsible for the happiness of another person outside of parenthood.

[redpepper]

If this is what roly is talking about Ceoli then I get it. Perhaps I need more clarification? I totally understand "caged" as you are referring to it, but I'm not sure if that is what roly means. I guess I will find out if she chooses to answer my questions that is :)

[GroundedSpirit]

I'm not sure what you mean GS, "need" and "desire" are different no? well I suppose they could be seen as similar also. What is it about, that you need a distinction between the two?

Lets say we did replace "need" with "strongly desire," what would the difference be to you?

Ok - here's what I'm getting at. See if I can make this make sense :)
If I were to "strongly desire" something (or someone) I would be accepting the possibility that it might not appear. I would "own" that desire and take full responsibility for my action/reaction to it's absence by either dropping the desire as unrealistic or unachievable or maybe modifying it accordingly.

If I believed that something was a "need", I would be acknowledging that in it's absence, my actual survival/existence would be threatened. It was such a critical part of me that I would cease to function with it missing.

Maybe this is just another example of semantics but it's the kind of thing that needs clarity in order to carry on an informed conversation. Even if, for example, you go to dictionary.com and look up "need" you find the same conflicting meanings. One basically alluding to a "requirement/necessity" and another alluding to "desire". To me that's calling a cat a dog !
A plant for example both NEEDs light and also desires it. It will reach for it. In it's absence - it DIES. THAT is NEED ! On the other hand, it will grow and blossom if given sufficient quantities. If insufficient it will always be less than it could be.
And I guess I look at love in humans in much the same framework. Lacking love, we will always be less than we can/should be. Be we would continue to exist, as sad as that existence might be. We can find people around us every day that are testament to that.

Now - the reason I feel this distinction is so critical is that our reaction to this need/desire will be based on that definition. If our existence is threatened - we will kill for it ! And various other extreme reactions.
If we we see it as a "desire" our reactions should not be as severe. We went into it with full awareness of it's unpredictable nature and are likely to react accordingly and in proper perspective.

I suspect we can all think back on numerous examples of actions of ourselves or others that were totally out of proportion to the reality (and expectations) of the situation.

Does that make better sense ?

GS

[LadyMacbeth]

Offline for a few days with the holidays and very fun discussion! Thought to clarify some attachment related points. First, attachment theory in adults is a thorough field of study, only by other authors (eg Allen Schore, Dale Fonagey, Dan Siegel, and others) although it is not a universal carryover from early work on attachment by Bowlby, etc. The neurobiology of attachment is a study of how this relates to brain functioning and is very cool stuff, a google search on "mirror neurons" turns up lots of fantastic and interesting reading about the interconnection of humans, adults, and how connection can be neurologically "mapped."

And yes, only a theory. For myself, in combination of study and personal experience, I would consider attachment to be more in line with an "instinct" rather than a "need" (because most of our hearts would continue beating and we would survive in the absence of others.) Humans are herd animals, and generally find themselves gravitating towards one another with a few exceptions. Procreation requires two individuals, although modern science makes it very possible to have little contact with the other human.

Outside of the scientific and evolutionary bits, I find it wonderful to allow myself to be vulnerable enough to admit the importance of another person to me, to long for him/her, and also to know that I am self sufficient enough to be my own person. It's just nicer when I don't have to do everything alone. I've always been more of an individuated person, and found it wonderful to learn how to have full attachments with others, including admission that life is better, more rich, and wonderful when it's shared. Need? Not really, but "strong desire", "instinct", "longing", absolutely!

[crisare]

Outside of the scientific and evolutionary bits, I find it wonderful to allow myself to be vulnerable enough to admit the importance of another person to me, to long for him/her, and also to know that I am self sufficient enough to be my own person. It's just nicer when I don't have to do everything alone. I've always been more of an individuated person, and found it wonderful to learn how to have full attachments with others, including admission that life is better, more rich, and wonderful when it's shared. I like this ... a lot. :)

Need? Not really,Honestly I'd say that yes, for me it is a need. I need other people in my life to be fulfilled and happy. I need affection - both emotional and physical. Will I survive without it? Sure. Will I be happy? No. I don't have a problem saying I need other people. :)

[redpepper]

If I were to "strongly desire" something (or someone) I would be accepting the possibility that it might not appear. I would "own" that desire and take full responsibility for my action/reaction to it's absence by either dropping the desire as unrealistic or unachievable or maybe modifying it accordingly.

If I believed that something was a "need", I would be acknowledging that in it's absence, my actual survival/existence would be threatened. It was such a critical part of me that I would cease to function with it missing.


The "accepting that it might not appear" and "owning" desire in terms of full responsibility part totally works for me and is what I have been trying to talk about. I can agree to this for sure. I don't "need" in terms of survival. I "need" in terms of choosing to better my life by having certain people in it. I will survive without them and can find others, but I have chosen them and they have chosen me because we want to work on our lives together. In this way I can agree to "strongly desire."

[redpepper]

Offline for a few days with the holidays and very fun discussion! Thought to clarify some attachment related points. First, attachment theory in adults is a thorough field of study, only by other authors (eg Allen Schore, Dale Fonagey, Dan Siegel, and others) although it is not a universal carryover from early work on attachment by Bowlby, etc. The neurobiology of attachment is a study of how this relates to brain functioning and is very cool stuff, a google search on "mirror neurons" turns up lots of fantastic and interesting reading about the interconnection of humans, adults, and how connection can be neurologically "mapped."

wow, thanks for this LadyM, great stuff I will be sure to read... it seems to go along with what I have been trying to say. Perhaps I can get my words figured out better as a result of doing some more reading on this.

[redpepper]

Honestly I'd say that yes, for me it is a need. I need other people in my life to be fulfilled and happy. I need affection - both emotional and physical. Will I survive without it? Sure. Will I be happy? No. I don't have a problem saying I need other people. :)

This is what I was trying to say, but I see now how the word "need" can be seen one of two ways. I would like to think that "need" and "strongly desire" can go hand in hand in terms of this conversation.

[rolypoly]

I'm so respectful that you are bringing this all up as that is hard shit to work out! Good for you for even broaching it here! :o

Thanks redpepper. :)

I'm going to quote, who else, Marshall Rosenberg:

"...this person has been taught non-NVC concepts of love such as, "If you really love someone, you deny your needs and take care of them". Then as soon as this person gets into a close relationship - a loving relationship - they turn judgmental..."

"You see, in the early stage of the relationship, they are giving from the heart, they enjoy giving; it's easy, they don't think of it until they pass the line.

What is the line? It's when people fear that they've "made a commitment". If you really want to scare them to death, talk about commitment or use the word "serious". As soon as they think it's a "serious relationship" - or the word "love" comes up... the moment they define it as a serious relationship, that's when they feel like they are responsible for your feelings".


How does it happen that your expectations become a means to define someone as wrong or bad?

Because there was a line when I was growing up. You're either on the good side, (you'll sacrifice yourself for me, you'll always be there for me, you'll always say nice things) or the bad side, (you forget important dates, show up late, say mean things).

Where does the fear come from? What are these expectations that that happens???!!!

It's really just a fear that I am to blame for feeling hurt because I'm choosing to accept "bad" behaviour from someone. So, for example, if my well-intentioned, loving partner does something and I feel hurt, I snap into the old paradigm or s/he's bad and I'm good, which comes across like expectations.

This is the process I use to heal all that:

"We may start a dialog with the other person by telling them what's alive in us and what we would like them to do to make life more wonderful for us. Then no matter how the respond, we try to connect to what's alive in them and what would make life more wonderful for them. And we keep this flow of communication going until we find strategies to meet everyone's needs, and we want to always be sure that whatever strategies people agree to, they're agreeing freely out of a willing desire to contribute to the well being of one another."

[GroundedSpirit]

This is what I was trying to say, but I see now how the word "need" can be seen one of two ways. I would like to think that "need" and "strongly desire" can go hand in hand in terms of this conversation.

Hey Red :)

And I think they CAN go hand in hand - as long as the "handler" has the distinction clear in their own mind.
Because here's the fear - and we've all undoubtedly seen this.
Because true "need" is biologically wired into us for survival purposes, if we encounter situations where a defined (self?) need is threatened we run the risk of activating that circuitry. Once that circuitry has been activated it takes a strong and stable person to deactivate it - get things back into some sort of proper perspective. Back into the "strong desire" realm. Failure of that has resulted in some very sad and dramatic reactions - to include suicide, murder, etc.
So to my thinking, I don't encourage anyone to live in a way ( heavily needy) or use terms that may trip those triggers unjustifiably. Some can hold their personal definition of need securely - others .....can't.

So it seems we are all on the same page :)

GS