Think of relationships as a kind of truce.
We build walls around ourselves. This is necessary, to a degree, because being perfectly vulnerable at all times is far worse. We cannot just be open to the world, because not everyone out there will be sensitive of how delicate we are, of how easy it is to cause us harm.
But once in a while, we find someone to whom our walls are nothing. We find someone who can make us happy by just saying a few words, or by giving us a smile. When this happens to us with a person again and again, we sometimes call this love.
We become dependant on this person. Our walls are there to help, but they are nonetheless restrictive. There is no greater solace than having someone with whom we can just forget the damned walls for a moment, and feel good. Feel like ourselves. Feel free. So we become dependant on such people with whom we have that kind of connection. It is a great thing, when it is mutual, but it is also a real problem. If a smile can set you soaring, a frown might just cause you to crash down, hard. If a few good words can make you happy, a few bad words may make you miserable.
Enter the truce, stage left. Having ascertained that one certain individual has broken through our defenses - and that we have broken through theirs, as well - it is natural to want to make this a good thing. But like we said, those who can make you happy can also make you miserable, just as easily, if not more so. A truce is in order. We agree to acknowledge our own vulnerability, and that of our loved one, and to try to be good. We promise it. We know it goes both ways - I won't hurt you, because I can hurt you, and because you can hurt me. But I won't, and you won't.
This is a blessing and a burden. It is a blessing, because we get to enjoy the freedom of a breached wall, and we get the security of a promise that this breach will not be abused. It is a burden, because we promise to watch our step, to be mindful of our partner's vulnerability. It's not an easy thing to do, and one need not think hard for an example of how this fails.
When such a truce fails it is rarely because of malice. Usually, it is because we did not correctly assess the potential pain involved, or because things have changed in ways that make it too difficult to uphold the truce. And oddly enough, it sometimes fails because we have raised new walls - or our partner has. No truce is necessary in absence of vulnerability. There are all too many ways for this truce to fail, though we rarely want it to do.
It can all be adorned in prettier words. Indeed, love deserves more than this. Saying this mutual vulnerability is beautiful would be an understatement. Calling the truce "nice" would be a joke. It can, nevertheless, be insightful to think of it in these terms, dry as they may be. That it does not paint the whole picture goes without saying. But please, think of relationships as a kind of truce, if only for a moment. It may prove interesting.
Please tear this apart, I want to improve it.
Quote from: VERB` on August 24, 2008, 08:54:08 PM
Please tear this apart, I want to improve it.
Truces fail for two reasons:
1. Perceived advantage, and
2. Rage.
Not sure about that.
I specifically have in mind the case of my sister's freshly terminated truce. They were together for two years. At the end of the day, it failed because he wouldn't really open up, nor was he ever truly supportive when my sister was in need. They had a great run for a while there but eventually it didn't make sense any more. In a sense, my sister had built up new walls and wasn't all that vulnerable any more. The guy was apparently far more vulnerable at that point, even though he had never really opened up all that time.
I hope this makes sense. Perceived advantage and rage had very little to do with it. Unless by perceived advantage, you mean expectation of the truce holding up and of sustained vulnerability. When that perceived advantage goes down, the truce fails.
Now I hope that made sense.
Quote from: VERB` on August 24, 2008, 09:14:18 PM
Not sure about that.
I specifically have in mind the case of my sister's freshly terminated truce. They were together for two years. At the end of the day, it failed because he wouldn't really open up, nor was he ever truly supportive when my sister was in need. They had a great run for a while there but eventually it didn't make sense any more. In a sense, my sister had built up new walls and wasn't all that vulnerable any more. The guy was apparently far more vulnerable at that point, even though he had never really opened up all that time.
I hope this makes sense. Perceived advantage and rage had very little to do with it. Unless by perceived advantage, you mean expectation of the truce holding up and of sustained vulnerability. When that perceived advantage goes down, the truce fails.
Now I hope that made sense.
If a relationship is now a truce, then this collection of monkeys is in even worse shape than I thought.
In fact, this collection of monkeys should probably nuke itself today, if relationships are now truces instead of friendship or love. Because other than the few relationships that can actually be relied upon, there is nothing else this pack of feral hominids has that is worth continuing.
Truce. Shit. My wife and I do not have a "truce", we have a functional relationship, based on love and respect.
And I pity anyone who thinks a relationship is anything else.
Thanks for taking this for more than it is. I never said this is the whole picture, in fact I made sure to note that it's not. It's one aspect of it, and I find it interesting and sometimes useful to think of relationships in terms of a truce.
Quote from: VERB` on August 24, 2008, 09:26:18 PM
Thanks for taking this for more than it is. I never said this is the whole picture, in fact I made sure to note that it's not. It's one aspect of it, and I find it interesting and sometimes useful to think of relationships in terms of a truce.
Then welcome to the Monkey House.
This would go over big in Washington, or Beverly Hills...where marriages are disposable, and often used for nothing more than political gain. Or - ho ho - in Nazi Germany, where children could sell their parents out to the state for perceived advantage.
If you have a relationship that you can perceive in terms of a truce, leave. Because you don't have a relationship, you have just another American train wreck.
Look, I'm a hopeless romantic. This is not how I talk about relationships, ever. This is, just as I presented it, an angle I find interesting, and one that has given me a bit of insight on experiences of my own and of those around me.
Quote from: VERB` on August 24, 2008, 09:52:04 PM
Look, I'm a hopeless romantic. This is not how I talk about relationships, ever. This is, just as I presented it, an angle I find interesting, and one that has given me a bit of insight on experiences of my own and of those around me.
Hey...you said tear it apart, I'm tearing it apart.
Plus, your friends should be more careful.
lol okay fair enough
I get what you're saying. Relationships can be rewarding and are much more meaningful than a mere truce implies, but this is essentially what it amounts to, all of the emotional aspects aside. I could make a few suggestions on style, but the idea works for me.
Quote from: VERB` on August 25, 2008, 11:04:23 AM
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 25, 2008, 05:55:23 AM
I could make a few suggestions on style
Please do!
Honestly, I like most of it.
"There are all too many ways for this truce to fail, though we rarely want it to do."
Scratch "do".
Also, in the last paragraph, you started most sentences with "It". Try to do this as infrequently as possible. The problem is not that it's necessarily bad in itself, but you can almost always come up with a stronger sentence beginning with a less ambiguous noun.
That's all that really stood out as distractions though.
Good work. Thanks for sharing it!
I liked it.
I like the idea but calling it a truce seems odd to me. Truce implies cessation of hostilities. If there were hostilities to begin with, I'm not likely to call a truce. Treaty or contract or covenant all work.
If I wanna fuck, there were no hostilities there to begin with. If I want to fuck her and she wants to fuck me, we can make a mutual agreement to drop our defensive barriers. If we like the mutual fucking enough and the person we are fucking enough, it can be a longer term relationship with restrictions and parameters built in to increase the mutual benefit.
Sounds more like a trade agreement than a truce.
We fuck over Canada, Canada fucks us over. works both ways.
Quote from: Ale on August 26, 2008, 07:21:22 PM
If I wanna fuck, there were no hostilities there to begin with.
wow.
you are REALLY missing out on the good stuff.
verb, if your relationship is like that, get a new one. you're smart enough, awesome enough, to not settle for less. do not settle for less :) you have the time, try on a few different ones, you'll notice how every relationship is like pretty much completely different than the one before. try to make every one somehow better than the previous, and you're on the road to success! ;-)