View Single Post
Old 01-11-2010, 10:37 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,429

DP-may I respond?
I've seen this specific dynamic backfire. Relationships for me are give and take. If they didn't do something for me, and likewise, the people I'm involved with, they wouldn't be WORTH nurturing or even preserving. I disagree fundimentally with the idea that someone should give of themselves without expecting some form of reward or benefit. Furthermore, to feed off one of your latter points, I think it's IMPOSSIBLE to honor oneself as a unique, thinking individual without thinking about self-benefit.
I think the key here is that EVERYONE in the relationship must give of themselves without expecting something SPECIFIC in return. IF anyone ONE person in the relationship is not doing this-the whole thing WILL backfire (every time) in one way or another. It ONLY will work if ALL parties do this.
If any one party fails-then you are correct-the WHOLE thing fails. It's all or nothing.

I've even venture to say that doing so is abusive.
See above. If one person fails-it WOULD be abusive.

I agree with your latter point WHOLEHEARTEDLY about both honoring the individual AND the relationship, and I don't mean my points above to negate that. But I suppose I'm wondering what your stance on that as a whole is. If someone's in an abusive or one-sided relationship, would you feel it's a virtue to "give [...] without expection of reciprication"?
Having been in this situation-my answer would be a resounding NO. It is not. It is ONLY a virtue if you have found a partner who is as committed to this practice as you are. It is only FUNCTIONAL if you have found a partner who is equally committed to the practice as you are.

Also, "sharing resources" could be interpreted vaguely as in the aforementioned "love and affection" or more specifically as "time" or "money". I'm a huge fan of sharing with people I love, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure I'd hold "sharing resources" as an ideal itself. There are some people, for having various value sets, that I'd not want to share my resources with. One of my core values is the ability to produce and provide for oneself. This sort of goes to the "honoring the individual" thing I mentioned before; I believe there is no such THING as a human being who can't produce or provide for themselves in some way or form. Someone entering a relationship with me claiming they could NOT would be them claiming that they are not humanl that they provide no value, that they are worthless. This would seem to conflict to me with your latter points.
Sharing by choice is not the same as sharing because someone claims inability. Maca shares his pay from work, I share my time mothering his (and mine and our) children. I CAN make money working just as well as he-but I don't because it works out better this way. All people SHOULD (not do, but should) come to the relationship as whole individuals who (as you said) are fully aware and capable of caring for and supporting themselves. BUT once you create the relationship then all should be willing to put all of themselves in so that the relationship can be fulfilling to its best capacity. In our case me being a full time at home mom allows me to devote an uninterrupted mind to raising the kids and caring for hte home, instead of both of us working and trying to carry too much. So we CHOSE what parts each would "share" in order to lighten the overall load on the relationship AND each person individually as well..

I have to see I think these two points to be in conflict themselves. Relationships require individuals and as such, different valuations of the same actions. For a single person to take "100% responsibility" for the quality of the relationship would seem to both absolve, and burden (chicken... egg... egg... chicken...) the people in that relationship. I see how people could take 100% responsibility for themselves, but claiming that you (or redpepper) are 100% responsible for your relationship working seem to dishonor both you and redpepper as individuals, in my eyes, and conflict with your points later.
Are you a mathmatician-minded person?
Because I think someone who is very math oriented would see that on account of 100% is "the sum total".

But for myself, I don't think that 100% is NECESSARILY the sum total of anything.

I see it that BOTH people must take 100% responsibility for the relationship AND that includes taking 100% responsibility to not have a relationship with anyone who isn't 100% responsible for the relationship ALSO.
Then you have much less risk of failure as where one person has a weakness-the other has it covered UNTIL THE FIRST CAN STRENGTHEN THEIR WEAKNESS and both parties know that they will both be fully committed to seeking out their own weaknesses and improving them-not allowing themselves to take advantage of the other persons strength.
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote