When worlds collide: A hazard of compartmentalizing people

[Epicurean Pariah]

So much for determination!

Slithy, You did choose and determined for yourself to try once more to find another soul that was willing to stand beside you and bend the universe to your mutual wills. To change the status quo to status love. That is how it works, imperceptible life changing determinations.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

I wouldn't seek out another one, myself. After my last relationship I was entirely at peace with the idea of never getting involved again. Then fate intervened, with the help of friends who pushed me to reconsider. I'm glad they did, but this was a one-in-a-million exception. Weird how it worked out so well.

Slithy, I will spew this out before I start my day.
My former wife and I were married when I was 24, she was 21. We worked and played quite well together, and thrived far beyond our own expectations, much to the dismay of our families and the general social sheep.
Divorced at 30, without rancor but with some glitches, properties and such.
I just guessing here, but perhaps 40/ 50 attempts at relationships all over the emotional spectrum. Maybe a half a dozen more or less, that had some value.
The older I became the more contentious the separations.
At about 58/59, I quit, threw in the towel, avoided any form of emotional attachment and focused on my work, my issues. I actually became more churlish than I am now, and chased the interested away. That lasted for 3-4 months.
It was almost at the moment that I was adamant about avoiding attachments, that I was swept back to shore and found another castaway to share our personal paradise.
Sometime when one seeks, one doesn't find, and when one refuses to look, one can see clearly. It is counter intuitive, but another reality.

 

[Beverly]

I certainly was not looking when I found my husband. I had no idea he had feelings for me beyond friendship, and we had worked together for five years. I was prepared to leave that life and settle into a quiet life alone and, was shocked when he asked to accompany me but, I wouldn't refuse my friend, even if he is a big oaf at times and has no musical talent at all so, he came with me.

He quickly got bored with being home all of the time and, found himself another job, away from music. Things just worked out and, for legal reasons more than for romantic love, thought there is some of that between us now, we got married. It was more a case of us getting along and not fighting, and wanting the same long term things in life so, we got married so that whomever outlives the other won't loose what we have built together and, will have whatever the other leaves behind. Logical, practical and, acceptable to us. Perhaps that means more than what people call love. We have someone when we need someone, but we have our privacy and, our own lives separate form each other too. I don't answer to him and, he does not answer to me, we decide now and again to do something together because we both want to do it at that time but, I'm under no pressure to be a perfect wife and, he doesn't have to be a perfect husband, we just have to get along and not kill each other.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

I certainly was not looking when I found my husband. I had no idea he had feelings for me beyond friendship, and we had worked together for five years. I was prepared to leave that life and settle into a quiet life alone and, was shocked when he asked to accompany me but, I wouldn't refuse my friend, even if he is a big oaf at times and has no musical talent at all so, he came with me.

He quickly got bored with being home all of the time and, found himself another job, away from music. Things just worked out and, for legal reasons more than for romantic love, thought there is some of that between us now, we got married. It was more a case of us getting along and not fighting, and wanting the same long term things in life so, we got married so that whomever outlives the other won't loose what we have built together and, will have whatever the other leaves behind. Logical, practical and, acceptable to us. Perhaps that means more than what people call love. We have someone when we need someone, but we have our privacy and, our own lives separate form each other too. I don't answer to him and, he does not answer to me, we decide now and again to do something together because we both want to do it at that time but, I'm under no pressure to be a perfect wife and, he doesn't have to be a perfect husband, we just have to get along and not kill each other.

Bev, I was telling Maelstrom, a couple days ago the same thing more or less.

Your relationship has what I call love of reason, and it has served mankind for thousands if years.
To review
#1 love, desire, passion and sex
#2 love of reason, a practical and symbiotic partnership.
#3 love of agape, understanding and acceptance.

The romantic concept is a fiction established by courtiers during the Crusades to take advantage of the lonely and gullible wives and daughters while the guys were busy killing each other. Don't get me wrong, every love has some romance, I am just saying it is a minuscule part of any relationship. Romance required a lot of compromise, energy and delusion to maintain the fantasy, and usually ends poorly when reality sets in. That is why romance is promoted so heavily, it is BS for the gullible. Think about it for just a second. The more something is promoted pushed and advertised the worse it is. Good things are recognized without the hype.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

This thread seems as good a place to put this thought out there. The thin skinned may not like this at all.
It seems to me that the more one buys into what others think, do and say at the age of childhood development, the unhappier the adult in general. The more one disregards their own lights in favor of what others say is good, right, acceptable, correct and superior to ones own reason the more troubled the individual. Soooo, do your thing, do what you want to do, no worries, be happy. It's easy if you try. Imagine, the Beatles. Do I have a second?

 

[Slithytoves]

Almost as if just when you thought you were out, they pulled you back in. Or perhaps did someone make an offer you could not refuse?

More like, Nadador set us both up with an offer he wasn't going to let us refuse! He was very persistent with both of us. I don't know how or why he saw what he did, because he's definitely not the matchmaker type, but he gave us both a very hard sell until Harrison broke down and emailed me. I don't know Nadador well, having only met him once (albeit for a couple of weeks straight) and chatted via email intemittently, but I do know he doesn't get excited about people very easily and isn't prone to hyperbole. So when he literally said, "Trust me, this man is perfect for you," I had to take him seriously.

By the time Harrison himself was making offers, no way was I refusing him!

The older I became the more contentious the separations.
At about 58/59, I quit, threw in the towel, avoided any form of emotional attachment and focused on my work, my issues. I actually became more churlish than I am now, and chased the interested away. That lasted for 3-4 months.
It was almost at the moment that I was adamant about avoiding attachments, that I was swept back to shore and found another castaway to share our personal paradise.
Sometime when one seeks, one doesn't find, and when one refuses to look, one can see clearly. It is counter intuitive, but another reality.

The funny thing with me is, I've never "sought". Every relationship I've had fell into my lap on its own schedule. I pushed a couple of existing opportunities out of anxiety at times, as I mentioned in my exchange with On The Inside, but never once have I gone looking for a partner and I've always been fine with long gaps, which have never in themselves made me "churlish" or the like. I'm a prickly pear just in general, though. I don't make it easy because I know that anybody who could handle me as a partner would have to really want to. Harrison is actually the first person I've ever accepted and engaged without giving a hard time. He came too well recommended, and I could tell from his first message that I'd found someone very unusual.

I chose to "withdraw from possibility," as I like to call it, because after many years of carefully avoiding men who were like my abusive father, I still wasn't meeting anyone I felt right about (save one, who died), and then I finally did fall victim to an abuser because he had an uncommon number of other qualities I found attractive. The realization that men who could understand me and keep up with me were actually dangerous as partners, for the most part, made me decide that I simply wasn't meant to be half of a pair. It was an objective and carefully considered choice.

I think Harrison and I worked out not only because of my great respect for the opinion of the person who introduced us, but because with our meeting also came the discovery of my Asperger's, which put my romantic history into a new and clear perspective. The timing was perfect, since of course he's an Aspie, too. Had he come along at any other time, I may well have stuck to my guns and not been open -- no matter how wonderful I saw him to be. He not only pushed me to explore whether I was on the spectrum but he also helped me with the transition, sharing a tremendous amount of himself in the process. A bond was formed almost immediately, before a single one of my defenses had time to trigger.

In a subsequent post you mentioned what you called "love of reason". I've made an academic study of love as part of my special interests in psychology, sociology and human sexuality. I identify eight different kinds of love, actually, and the one you're referring to would be called Pragma, in the scheme I subscribe to. It's the rational, durable kind of love I have always admired and aspired to, but never found until now.

He quickly got bored with being home all of the time and, found himself another job, away from music. Things just worked out and, for legal reasons more than for romantic love, thought there is some of that between us now, we got married. It was more a case of us getting along and not fighting, and wanting the same long term things in life so, we got married so that whomever outlives the other won't loose what we have built together and, will have whatever the other leaves behind. Logical, practical and, acceptable to us. Perhaps that means more than what people call love. We have someone when we need someone, but we have our privacy and, our own lives separate form each other too. I don't answer to him and, he does not answer to me, we decide now and again to do something together because we both want to do it at that time but, I'm under no pressure to be a perfect wife and, he doesn't have to be a perfect husband, we just have to get along and not kill each other.

You don't need my validation, of course, but I understand and appreciate that kind of love -- and I do find it to be love. Pragma, as I noted to EP.

The passionate, electric type of love EP mentions, which in my (and the Greeks') scheme is called Eros, has been sold to us for many generations as the necessary precursor to a steadier, more rational kind of love that comes as a relationship matures. What its purveyors fail to mention is that not every Eros-based attraction lasts. In fact, most flame out quickly. Waiting Eros out to see what will be left to work with afterwards has never been appealing to me. So the kind of love/relationship you describe, while not the sort of thing movies and songs are written about, is actually the kind I would say is most valuable.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

More like, Nadador set us both up with an offer he wasn't going to let us refuse! He was very persistent with both of us. I don't know how or why he saw what he did, because he's definitely not the matchmaker type, but he gave us both a very hard sell until Harrison broke down and emailed me. I don't know Nadador well, having only met him once (albeit for a couple of weeks straight) and chatted via email intemittently, but I do know he doesn't get excited about people very easily and isn't prone to hyperbole. So when he literally said, "Trust me, this man is perfect for you," I had to take him seriously.

By the time Harrison himself was making offers, no way was I refusing him!




The funny thing with me is, I've never "sought". Every relationship I've had fell into my lap on its own schedule. I pushed a couple of existing opportunities out of anxiety at times, as I mentioned in my exchange with On The Inside, but never once have I gone looking for a partner and I've always been fine with long gaps, which have never in themselves made me "churlish" or the like. I'm a prickly pear just in general, though. I don't make it easy because I know that anybody who could handle me as a partner would have to really want to. Harrison is actually the first person I've ever accepted and engaged without giving a hard time. He came too well recommended, and I could tell from his first message that I'd found someone very unusual.

I chose to "withdraw from possibility," as I like to call it, because after many years of carefully avoiding men who were like my abusive father, I still wasn't meeting anyone I felt right about (save one, who died), and then I finally did fall victim to an abuser because he had an uncommon number of other qualities I found attractive. The realization that men who could understand me and keep up with me were actually dangerous as partners, for the most part, made me decide that I simply wasn't meant to be half of a pair. It was an objective and carefully considered choice.

I think Harrison and I worked out not only because of my great respect for the opinion of the person who introduced us, but because with our meeting also came the discovery of my Asperger's, which put my romantic history into a new and clear perspective. The timing was perfect, since of course he's an Aspie, too. Had he come along at any other time, I may well have stuck to my guns and not been open -- no matter how wonderful I saw him to be. He not only pushed me to explore whether I was on the spectrum but he also helped me with the transition, sharing a tremendous amount of himself in the process. A bond was formed almost immediately, before a single one of my defenses had time to trigger.

In a subsequent post you mentioned what you called "love of reason". I've made an academic study of love as part of my special interests in psychology, sociology and human sexuality. I identify eight different kinds of love, actually, and the one you're referring to would be called Pragma, in the scheme I subscribe to. It's the rational, durable kind of love I have always admired and aspired to, but never found until now.





You don't need my validation, of course, but I understand and appreciate that kind of love -- and I do find it to be love. Pragma, as I noted to EP.

The passionate, electric type of love EP mentions, which in my (and the Greeks') scheme is called Eros, has been sold to us for many generations as the necessary precursor to a steadier, more rational kind of love that comes as a relationship matures. What its purveyors fail to mention is that not every Eros-based attraction lasts. In fact, most flame out quickly. Waiting Eros out to see what will be left to work with afterwards has never been appealing to me. So the kind of love/relationship you describe, while not the sort of thing movies and songs are written about, is actually the kind I would say is most valuable.

Very interesting, would like some expansion on the 8 aspects or definitions of love. A synopsis will do. As you may perceive by now I had high regard for me even as a child, and let's say less regard for the restrictions of others. A poor playmate but a loyal and trusted friend even by those that did not like me personally. I never did make sense of that particular irony. Anyway, happiness starts within the ivory dome and resides within a loving home. Burma Shave?

 

[Slithytoves]

Very interesting, would like some expansion on the 8 aspects or definitions of love. A synopsis will do.

There are actually nine. When I posted before, I forgot my other favorite, Phrenic love. This list is an amalgamation of the classic Greek loves plus the modern list of sociologist John A. Lee.

Agape - Selfless, altruistic love; spiritual love; universal love of mankind.

Eros - Passionate physical and emotional love; stereotype of romantic love.

Ludus - Love that is played as a game or sport; conquest; playful love.

Mania - Highly volatile love; obsession.

Philautia - Self-love based on self-respect.

Philia - Comradely love of friendship; loyalty, as between brothers in arms.

Phrenic - Intellectual love of any kind; intellectually-based love of a person.

Pragma - Practical love that is driven as much by the head as the heart; mature, enduring love.

Storge - Affectionate love of kinship; familial love; love based on similarity.

 

[Beverly]

This thread seems as good a place to put this thought out there. The thin skinned may not like this at all.
It seems to me that the more one buys into what others think, do and say at the age of childhood development, the unhappier the adult in general. The more one disregards their own lights in favor of what others say is good, right, acceptable, correct and superior to ones own reason the more troubled the individual. Soooo, do your thing, do what you want to do, no worries, be happy. It's easy if you try. Imagine, the Beatles. Do I have a second?

You can have my second, third, fourth and, fifth for that. Had I bought into the crap I was fed (metaphorically) as a child and youth, I would be a walking disaster that might know herbalism but, was incapable of being social at all, and had failed in school. According to my father, I was "Just a stupid, clumsy girl, like girls should be kept. She will need a man to take care for her and keep her in line." I'm sure it's clear that while never did so audibly, I mentally told him "Up yours." and went on about living my life my way.

Not a band I particularly like but, the song has the right message. The lead vocalist is too close to going "screamo" for my tastes. The instrumentals are great, and the lyric, just not the lead vocalist's style but, he is doing it his way, I accept that.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

There are actually nine. When I posted before, I forgot my other favorite, Phrenic love. This list is an amalgamation of the classic Greek loves plus the modern list of sociologist John A. Lee.

Agape - Selfless, altruistic love; spiritual love; universal love of mankind.

Eros - Passionate physical and emotional love; stereotype of romantic love.

Ludus - Love that is played as a game or sport; conquest; playful love.

Mania - Highly volatile love; obsession.

Philautia - Self-love based on self-respect.

Philia - Comradely love of friendship; loyalty, as between brothers in arms.

Phrenic - Intellectual love of any kind; intellectually-based love of a person.

Pragma - Practical love that is driven as much by the head as the heart; mature, enduring love.

Storge - Affectionate love of kinship; familial love; love based on similarity.

S, thank you. I will remember and refer to these as long as I am able. I think what most people call romantic love is ludus mania, not the best way to live a content and respectful life is it?

 

[Slithytoves]

I think what most people call romantic love is ludus mania, not the best way to live a content and respectful life is it?

I think most new romantic relationships are firmly rooted in harmless Eros, but one of the reasons why I like this expanded list is because it does include some varieties that can be unhealthy; also "comorbid" to others, distorting them in potentially destructive ways.

 

[hiraeth]

I certainly was not looking when I found my husband. I had no idea he had feelings for me beyond friendship, and we had worked together for five years. I was prepared to leave that life and settle into a quiet life alone and, was shocked when he asked to accompany me but, I wouldn't refuse my friend, even if he is a big oaf at times and has no musical talent at all so, he came with me.

He quickly got bored with being home all of the time and, found himself another job, away from music. Things just worked out and, for legal reasons more than for romantic love, thought there is some of that between us now, we got married. It was more a case of us getting along and not fighting, and wanting the same long term things in life so, we got married so that whomever outlives the other won't loose what we have built together and, will have whatever the other leaves behind. Logical, practical and, acceptable to us. Perhaps that means more than what people call love. We have someone when we need someone, but we have our privacy and, our own lives separate form each other too. I don't answer to him and, he does not answer to me, we decide now and again to do something together because we both want to do it at that time but, I'm under no pressure to be a perfect wife and, he doesn't have to be a perfect husband, we just have to get along and not kill each other.

That is very heartening to read. This is the only kind of partnership I can see myself being in - practical, symbiotic, intellectually stimulating (few terms mentioned earlier). I am not able to engage in passionate energy for another person. Caring and affection yes, but not any kind of emotional experience that can be akin to passion. And it takes me a disproportionately long time to warm up to someone enough to be openly affectionate. Unfortunately it seems like the vast majority of people have romantic and sexual expectations of their partner, or even if they don't label it that way, a "being together because we get along and it makes practical sense" just doesn't do it for most people.

 

[Beverly]

That is very heartening to read. This is the only kind of partnership I can see myself being in - practical, symbiotic, intellectually stimulating (few terms mentioned earlier). I am not able to engage in passionate energy for another person. Caring and affection yes, but not any kind of emotional experience that can be akin to passion. And it takes me a disproportionately long time to warm up to someone enough to be openly affectionate. Unfortunately it seems like the vast majority of people have romantic and sexual expectations of their partner, or even if they don't label it that way, a "being together because we get along and it makes practical sense" just doesn't do it for most people.

Emotion is the problem there, most people can't seem to apply logic and being objective to a close relationship. Great sex is all well and good but, that stuff has a shelf life (as my husband reminds me.) You will both age and, all of that fiery passion and so forth is not going to be there forever. If that's all you built the relationship on, it's over.

If you were smart and built the relationship on shred interests, friendship, shared goals for the future and, a shared desire for a similar lifestyle, then you have something to enjoy when the fiery stuff expires and, something to give you peace of mind and security when the other is gone.

We don't like to think about it but, no one is going to live forever. If you're going to get into a long term, hopefully life long relationship, make sure you can survive it when your partner is gone and, make sure they can survive it if you go first.

 

[hiraeth]

Emotion is the problem there, most people can't seem to apply logic and being objective to a close relationship. Great sex is all well and good but, that stuff has a shelf life (as my husband reminds me.) You will both age and, all of that fiery passion and so forth is not going to be there forever. If that's all you built the relationship on, it's over.

If you were smart and built the relationship on shred interests, friendship, shared goals for the future and, a shared desire for a similar lifestyle, then you have something to enjoy when the fiery stuff expires and, something to give you peace of mind and security when the other is gone.

We don't like to think about it but, no one is going to live forever. If you're going to get into a long term, hopefully life long relationship, make sure you can survive it when your partner is gone and, make sure they can survive it if you go first.

Yes those are my thoughts exactly. But most people I have encountered seem to be of the mind "if there's no passion, then what's the point of starting a relationship?" I wonder if a big part of that is also fear of commitment and responsibility. Those things are inherently somewhat unsettling to many people, especially younger adults, so they feel like the draw of passion is necessary to quash or suppress those fears? I don't know, I don't get it at all!!

The idea of being so dependent on your partner that you won't be able to live when they go, or vice versa, is definitely unsettling to me. Yet, some people take that as evidence (sometimes "the best" evidence) of the strength of a relationship. Huh... why??

I'm just so confused all the time now. People are so confusing. Why aren't there more people who think like us?

 

[pax]

I have not read the whole thread, but to the original question, I'm not sure if I do this or not, maybe I just don't know or hang out with that many people in real life so it's not an issue.

There's people I've met through sporting clubs; mine and my husbands , who I'll happily have a drink or meal with with hubby. The family I see are good with hubby. There's my work "mates" ( use the term loosely)who I would not really mix with outside work because - most aren't the sort of people I would choose to hang out with otherwise.
I once tried to mix up my groups by inviting a friend from one group as a guest on an organised outing with another group - but she only wanted to come if she could bring her sister, cousin, and friend along. (Umm no guest means you don't invite everyone you know. Either you pay to join the group or form your own..) Strange thing is we're both spectrumites.

I guess there's groups I choose to be in and those I have some obligation to be in (work , in the past other family members) that I didn't want to mix because the less they know about me and my other world the better.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[Maelstrom]

In two weeks, I'll be deliberately putting myself in the middle of the one social situation I dread more than any other: My partner will be meeting my (immediate) family for the first time.

Since I was a kid, I've ordered my social universe by neatly compartmentalizing people according their context in my life. I have a "family" box, a "partner" box, and various "friend" boxes depending on how and when we met. Never the 'tween shall meet; in my head, and when I can help it, in real life. This tendency has only grown stronger in adulthood, and has been easy to facilitate for the fact that I live several hundred miles from my family, and my friends (and often, partners) are scattered all over the world.

If ever the people from one box have reason to meet those from another, I simply freak out. It's like an out-of-body experience. I lose my sense of place and identity, I don't understand my role in the gathering, and internal -- sometimes external -- chaos ensues for me. As much as I suspect most everyone in my life would get along well, just the idea of mixing my various loved ones makes my head want to explode. I always end up acting like an idiot, somehow.

So now I have a big one coming up. I'm 45, and I've only ever interacted with my family and a partner simultaneously twice before. One of those times doesn't even count fully, since my parents introduced us (albeit originally long-distance, by phone). I was doing fine until this week, but as The Day draws near, I'm starting to go a little crazy already. I have this weird cognitive dissonance going on. On one hand, I have a consistent visualization of everything going very well, with many concrete facts and considerations supporting that image. On the other, I'm having painfully anxious thoughts that I will explode into a million pieces anyway.

Does anybody else here recognize this tendency, having a hard time mixing their humans?

Thoughts or experiences?

Hi Slithytoves , Sigh! I understand totally, if there is anyway family can find to drive the relations car into the ditch, they seem to find it almost every time.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

This thread was wonderful, insightful. I hope we all find the type of love that each of us and everyone else for that matter, can grow and flourish in.
The matter and merit of passion piqued my interest.

It seems to me I read that chimpanzees when aggravated, frustrated and under stress make war.

Bonobos under stress make love.
We simply can't figure out what is good for us, as well as others.
I mean I really haven't a clue about any of this, but it seems to me that the biggest turn on is turning someone on. You know, it's about them, and I like it.

 

[pax]

One of my all time favs

love it

 

[Slithytoves]

Unfortunately it seems like the vast majority of people have romantic and sexual expectations of their partner, or even if they don't label it that way, a "being together because we get along and it makes practical sense" just doesn't do it for most people.

Emotion is the problem there, most people can't seem to apply logic and being objective to a close relationship.

How old are you, hiraeth? I've always dated much older men; Harrison is actually one of the closest in age of the lot (16 year difference). My observation has been that people are much more amenable to relationships based on more durable things as they get older, not wanting or needing so much of the hot and heavy stuff. It's been even easier to find that as I get older myself, since men who date young younger women are usually looking for the passion which comes with that youth.

Beverly, is there any "emotional" connection between you and your husband? In what way? (I'm sorry if I've missed posts you've made on this previously.) I agree that most people can't or don't put much weight on logic/objectivity when choosing and building a relationship, but I also wonder what it would look like if that's what most of us actually did. I can't help but think the failure rate would be about the same.

Yes those are my thoughts exactly. But most people I have encountered seem to be of the mind "if there's no passion, then what's the point of starting a relationship?" I wonder if a big part of that is also fear of commitment and responsibility. Those things are inherently somewhat unsettling to many people, especially younger adults, so they feel like the draw of passion is necessary to quash or suppress those fears? I don't know, I don't get it at all!!

Why aren't there more people who think like us?

I think it's a combination of biology and socialization. On the biology side, humans still have the primal drive to reproduce, so most of us aren't instinctively attracted to people who seem relatively languid. We not only want to make babies but we also want to make them with "vigorous" people. On the socialization side, it's pounded into our heads from a very young age that romance and passion are desirable, and signs that a person is really into us.

You do have a point about fear of responsibility/commitment, though. If people are afraid of it, they're not going to want to get into a relationship that seems to skip right to it.

I used to hate it that more people didn't think like me about relationships, but now I kinda like it. It makes you really value a kindred spirit when you find one. Mainstream thinkers take so much for granted in others.

 

[hiraeth]

Slithytoves I'm 21. I've always been this way. Maybe people value compatibility more as they get older, but I'm not sure if the percentage of people who can accept the complete lack of "eros" increases.

But now I am curious. Is there a type of love (in your list, or beyond) to describe reverence and admiration (ie. for a mentor, teacher, idol, etc)? Or is that arguably not a form of "love"?