[thechat] marital crisis update.

.jeff jeff at members.evolt.org
Thu Jul 18 04:16:01 CDT 2002


lachlan,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Lachlan Cannon
>
> >  remember, the responsibility for the failure of a
> > relationship is nearly always a 50/50 split.
>
> I (very) strongly disagree. It might be in a lot of
> cases but there is no way it is nearly always that way.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

sorry to pop back in to this thread so late, but i have to respond to this.

i have seen and heard alot of stories involving relationships and how they've failed.  whether or not it's immediately apparent or either of the partners wants to admit, the failure of the relationship hangs on both parties heads.  the phrase "it takes two to tango" was made for this.

every situation i've ever seen both people played a part in the failure.  one sabotaged while the other latched on.  one made the other their parent while the other treated the other one like a child.  one pushed their mate's buttons while the mate blew their brains out with alcohol and/or drugs.  one was emotionally or physically unavailable and the other one cheated (physically or emotionally).  the list goes on.  if you take a good hard look you'll find that if someone is emotionally healthy and not acting out in some form of destructive manner (whether or not it's something that's praised by society) they'll likely not be attracted to those that are emotionally sick.  the same goes for the emotionally sick.  they're not going to be attracted to the emotionally healthy.  so, that brings us to another catch phrase -- "birds of a feather flock together".

so, two emotionally healthy people aren't likely to go down the road to a failed relationship (if they're intending to pursue one that's longterm/lifelong).  however, two emotionally sick people will bring with them destructive behavior of some fashion.  their destructive behaviors are almost always complimentary.  for example, it's not likely you'll have two drunks get together for more than a drunken shag.  if it's going to last awhile one has to be the enabler to catch the drunk when they fall and push them to drink when their sober.  the enabler usually grew up in a house where a parent was an alcoholic or drug user.  so, they learned how to work with that person and their craziness to get what they wanted.  all too often the skills they learned were nothing more than cheap manipulation.  so, when this enabler grows up and is ready for a mate, they look for someone that models behavior similar or identical to what they learned to work with when they were growing up -- familiarity.  interestingly, the person modeling the behavior may not be a drunk or drug addict.  they might be what's called a "dry drunk" or someone that exhibits all the behavior of an alcoholic but don't actually drink or do drugs.  nonetheless, the behavior is the same and that's what's familiar to the enabler.  if the drunk stops drinking, they may alter their behavior making the enabler crazy.  so, to bring things back to familiarity the enabler does things that the enabler may or may not be consciously aware will cause the drunk to shun their sobriety.  this sends the drunk to drink to avoid the behavior of the enabler.  this is just one example of both parts.

i could go on and on and on with more examples, each slightly different.  but, there's a common theme in them all.  at a glance, no matter how insignificant a person's involvement in the success or failure of a relationship, upon further study you *will* find that the responsibility falls pretty evenly.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I mean there's not even a reason why it's necessarily
> the fault of the people in the relationship...
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

oh sure, if you believe that people don't have to get responsible for themselves then you could say their upbringing, family life, social atmosphere, culture, etc. made them the people they are and the failure is simply a symptom of their environment.

i'm not of that viewpoint.  sure, i believe that all those things affect a person as their developing, but i also believe there's a point when you take all the crap you've been handed and have to decide what works for you and what doesn't and needs to be discarded.  that's not to imply that "what works for you" covers only positive things, though it should.  some people choose to keep destructive behaviors -- alcoholism to numb the pain, smoking so they don't have to feel their emotions, church so they don't have to face who they are, work so they can avoid a mate, perfectionism so they can put the focus on others failures instead of their own, etc. -- because they're familiar.

sorry to go on so long.  this is a subject i know all too well.

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/




More information about the thechat mailing list