?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
13 October 2004 @ 05:24 pm
Something special??  
Is it reasonable to have something special that you share only with a significant other of some sort? Something special that you only share together?

-the redhead-
Tags: ,
 
 
 
felician_logicfelician_logic on October 13th, 2004 05:04 pm (UTC)
It's reasonable. But not required. If monogamous, the 'something special' is kind of built in, assuming fidelity isn't an issue. And it's only special if both parties agree it is. One saying it is, while the other just shrugs, doesn't quite cut it. Can be a touchy issue, depending on the context.
-the redhead-theredhead on October 14th, 2004 09:35 am (UTC)
What do you mean by 'not required'? Do you find relationships where you have *nothing* that is special and unique to your relationship, even if it's just a pet name or an inside joke, fulfilling? Are those just like 'generic' relationships?

Welcome, btw *smile*

-the redhead-
(no subject) - felician_logic on October 14th, 2004 09:51 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - felician_logic on October 14th, 2004 10:21 am (UTC) (Expand)
Bill the bold bosthoonwcg on October 13th, 2004 05:05 pm (UTC)
Sure. Lots of people have such things. (Of course it can get complicated for polyfolk, because everyone involved needs to know what one another's specail things are.)
-the redhead-theredhead on October 14th, 2004 09:25 am (UTC)
Why does 'everyone involved need' to know what everyone else's special things are? They don't necessarily have to be big, show-stopping things, so why would it be anyone else's business?

-the redhead-
(no subject) - wcg on October 14th, 2004 09:34 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 10:40 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - wcg on October 14th, 2004 12:21 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Tealteal_cuttlefish on October 13th, 2004 06:31 pm (UTC)
Yes, it's reasonable. If there's not something special, how is there something significant?

Incidentally, I think I may know you. Does "Mom's BBS" ring a bell for you? If so, it's been 12 years since I've seen you, which is why I can't tell from the icon.
-the redhead-theredhead on October 14th, 2004 09:23 am (UTC)
If there's not something special, how is there something significant?

Could you comment more on what you mean by this? What do you see a practical application of your thought being?

Mmmmm - 12 years ago I was still in St. Louis.

-the redhead-
(no subject) - teal_cuttlefish on October 14th, 2004 10:25 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 11:37 am (UTC) (Expand)
Phenimorephenimore on October 14th, 2004 12:40 am (UTC)
reasonable? i think it's necessary
-the redhead-theredhead on October 14th, 2004 09:20 am (UTC)
Why and how do you think it's necessary?

Welcome, btw *smile*

-the redhead-
(no subject) - phenimore on October 14th, 2004 12:35 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat.melanie on October 14th, 2004 05:59 am (UTC)
it's reasonable, sure. depending upon the nature of the *thing*, however, it isn't always practical.
Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat.melanie on October 14th, 2004 06:01 am (UTC)
what i mean is, the principal of having something just between two people is reasonable. the particular thing that is chosen, however...well, sometimes, it's just doesn't work in practice.
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 06:10 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - melanie on October 14th, 2004 06:21 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 06:49 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - melanie on October 14th, 2004 06:56 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 09:16 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - melanie on October 14th, 2004 09:30 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 09:48 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - melanie on October 14th, 2004 10:10 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 12:46 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 09:38 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - melanie on October 14th, 2004 09:44 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 10:29 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - melanie on October 14th, 2004 10:41 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 11:49 am (UTC) (Expand)
-the redhead-theredhead on October 14th, 2004 06:07 am (UTC)
So are you saying it would never be practical or reasonable to have a special thing you and they share as a special thing? I'm confused, as I never referenced what such a thing might be, but only the idea.

-the redhead-
(no subject) - melanie on October 14th, 2004 06:15 am (UTC) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
-the redhead-theredhead on October 14th, 2004 09:19 am (UTC)
You seem to be on the same tangent as Mel. Please see my comments to her. What I think you are both talking about is an *entirely* different topic.

-the redhead-
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 11:17 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - theredhead on October 14th, 2004 09:38 am (UTC) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat.melanie on October 15th, 2004 05:30 am (UTC)
Part 1
"You placed waaaaaaaaaaay more emphasis on the how it doesn't work or things change than you did on the idea of it being reasonable to have something special to begin with. Same with your example just above - it could almost feel like a lecture on change and acceptance and maturity. *That* sort of thing is where I got the idea that these sorts of things aren't important to you.

Maybe you could share some insight and feeling about those things that are special to a relationship you have and why? Like why do you even have special things with anyone? Does it add uniqueness to the relationship? Does it add meaning? Does it give you something you can cherish? Did those sorts of things mean more to you at the beginning of your relationship?"

I guess the best way to put it is that, while I don't think that having exclusive "things" in a relationship is unreasonable, and while I don't think such things are value-less, I also don't see it as a goal to set out for accomplishment. Things that evolve in that direction naturally are what I tend to have, and since they are things that have evolved through the course of a relationship culture with a person, then of course they are prone to keep right on evolving and changing over time.

I don't consider such things an absolute necessity, no. To me, every relationship is already a unique situation unto itself - any two people you stick together are going to interact and develop an internal culture between them that is going to be intrinsically different from any other relationship. Maybe not in ways that you can list on a sheet of paper, but nevertheless, it's there and it's real to me. So, when "us" things develop, those are sweet and sentimental things. Generally they come about eventually in most relationships. But I don't set out looking for them, or making any sort of effort to choose things to cordon off that way. There have been a few times in the past that I've tried to cordon off segments for "us" things, and mostly those things have either not been things that were as sentimental to the other person as they were to me or else eventually it somehow didn't stay practiceable in the long run. That's been okay for me, though, because it's not part of my internal definition of any value of "us"-ness.

I think maybe the core of my paradigm difference with you here, the thing that you seem to be taking such personal offense to, is that while I feel that "us" things are not an unreasonable thing to want, and while I do appreciate the sentimental value they can potentially afford, I do *not* consider them to be a vital element in defining a relationship as unique, or special, or uniquely special. In my mindset, the things that make a relationship unique and special are mostly things that are too intangible and volatile to distill into such things. Also, in most interpersonal relationships I've had in my life, the things that really hit my core as the most deeply sentimental didn't necessarily push the exact same buttons for the other person. Kind of like song lyrics, you know? You might find a song that really kicks you in the chest, really speaks to your soul. So you go quoting lyrics here and there, and other people just aren't likely to really get the same thing out of it as you are. *shrug*

"and i neither want to take sides nor be used as some sort of ammunition against my will.

Who said that would happen? "

it already has.

"Do you really think your opinion is of that much import? Not to be offensive, but do you seriously think that?"


Er, no. That's not what I mean. But there has already been a situation where C~ merely mentioned to me that you two were breaking up, and letting you know that I'd been told that simple fact was enough to make you post your resentment over his talking to me about it in your journal. That's the sort of thing I don't want to get into.
Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat.melanie on October 15th, 2004 05:31 am (UTC)
Re: Part 2

"...think you are both good people, and i don't want to hurt either of you. so...i think i will just abstain from taking that particular risk. i don't want to inadvertantly cause hurt.

Does this mean that you will never again express an opinion on whether someone is right or wrong in our situation?"

Yes, that's what it means. Because it's really not a matter of wrong or right, and I really am NOT willing to take part in that. It's not about wrong and right. You are both good people, you are both intelligent people, you are both people who are doing the best you can do, trying very hard. It's not about wrong and right. You're both doing your best, you're both trying to think things through carefully and stick to your principles, so you're both right. That doesn't guarantee synchronicity, unfortunately, but lack of synchronicity doesn't make something automatically a right or wrong situation. There are far too many possible paradigms in play for that to be true.

"I find that somewhat odd, as you've disagreed with me, expressed you thought I was wrong, and shared your feelings on a number of topics in the past."

Yeah, and it hasn't gone so well. I don't know if you'll be willing to see or accept the distinction here, but my intention has never been to tell you you're WRONG about anything. Again, I don't see any of it as a right/wrong situation. Have you heard the thing about how when your tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? Well, what I've been trying to do is, when I can see that there's a possibility that maybe something could be interpreted as a screw, and maybe if, if it were a screw, it might not cause so much hurt for you, then maybe I could suggest to you to take a look and see if it's a screw. (in other words, I think that sometimes you read in slights where none were intended, and I was under the misguided impression that if a slight wasn't really intended, that it might make you feel better. However, that seems to just make you feel like your feelings are being trivialized, instead.) But that's not gone over well. I don't seem to have the magic touch to pick the right combination of words to bring that concept to you in a way that you don't find an affront. So, I might as well shut up and not make it worse.
Re: Part 3 - melanie on October 15th, 2004 05:31 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Part 4 - melanie on October 15th, 2004 05:31 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Part 1 - theredhead on October 15th, 2004 08:55 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Part 1 - melanie on October 15th, 2004 09:06 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Part 1 - theredhead on October 15th, 2004 09:33 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Part 1 - theredhead on October 15th, 2004 10:20 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Part 1 - melanie on October 15th, 2004 09:47 am (UTC) (Expand)