Are relationships a sign of weakness?

[KennF]

Let's look at the definition of "codependent relationship: "Codependent relationships are a type of dysfunctional helping relationship where one person supports or enables another person's addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement."

In every relationship I've ever seen there was some kind of division of duties. For example, one partner would cook while the other would clean. This division of duties only serves to promote immaturity and irresponsibility by preventing people from gaining the basic skills we expect out of adults. Another thing is that when you always have someone in your corner to rely on, for anything, you start to become dependent on that person's support. If you always have boyfriend Bob to help you, why learn how to be a mature adult to deal with things on your own?

See? Relationships are codependent.

I wouldn't mix two concepts, as you are doing.

First, division of chores is not a barrier to learning skills. If I choose to allow my husband to do the laundry, it is because he doesn't dislike it the way I do. We are both capable of doing it, but I have less pleasure.
I choose to do much of the cooking of our dinner parties. That isn't because he isn't capable of doing it or lacks the skills, but because I enjoy doing it more than he does.

And in your definition of codependency, you need to understand that the term "enables" is extremely critical. Codependency requires that a person enhances or continues the deficiency and relies on the continuation of the self-destructive behavior. That isn't true in healthy relationships. In a healthy relationship, the support is to repair or remove the dysfunctional behavior permanently. If that cannot be done, then self-preservation moves the healthy person out of the relationship.

 

[KennF]

Long distance relationships aren't really relationships.

By definition, they are relationships. They wouldn't be labeled Long Distance Relationships otherwise. They have differing dynamics in some areas, but most soldiers would disagree that they aren't in relationships with their partners, spouses, betrothed, etc...

Long distance relationships are more difficult since in addition to the self-sufficiency you must go out of your way to reconnect at every available moment. The communication portion and intimacy portions of the relationship are strained. That doesn't take people out of relating.

 

[KennF]

Yes. People only love you for what they can get out of you.

Ouch. That's sad.

Okay, that may be your current experience, but I can assure you that isn't the reality of many people. There is something you haven't experienced yet and, for you, it is probably in that "weakness" that you feel exists in people. Maybe you'll let someone in enough to experience it. Maybe not.

No one can explain it to you fully, but there is a sense of fulfillment that goes far beyond anything else. It exists in relationship with another person (or people). There is ability to lose yourself and find yourself in relationships. There is the total joy in absolutely unconditional love and the utter fear of loss and surrender.

Those benefits are worth all the work.

 

[KennF]

Fade has conceded her point. That means I win.

It wasn't a contest.

 

[KennF]

"The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves (or yourself as the case may be).

Always love this quote.

 

[693987]

Long distance relationships are more difficult since in addition to the self-sufficiency you must go out of your way to reconnect at every available moment. The communication portion and intimacy portions of the relationship are strained. That doesn't take people out of relating.

Very true. I text off and on throughout the day with my boyfriend, and we talk an hour or more every night on the phone. We're both completely self-sufficient, able to be independent, grown adults, but we work extremely well together when we do get to be together. He makes me want to be a better person. I make him want to be a better person. We both work to better ourselves.

 

[bigbucky]

no, we all need love, and romantic love is part of our instinct to pro-create at least for straight people. I'm attracted to good looking women. I dunno about gay people cause I am not gay.

 

[MisterB]

Wow, some interesting, thought-provoking posts. I don't know how old the OP is, but i am going to assume under 30 based on the nature of his posts' content. Here's the Cliff notes version of my story...

I am 62. Partnered for 38 years; married almost one. We know too many folks who have quit/thrown-in-the-towel when they hit the first bump. Swore off future relationships based on those experiences. Bitter. Jealous of others who were in viable relationships. Sadly, the OP's posts remind me of these folks.

I kissed a few toads along the way to finding my prince. Both of us had come out of relationships a short time before meeting. We were great FWBs, and realized soon into it that we had fallen in love. Oops. I guess in the OP's eyes that would make me weak, but it didn't. It made me stronger because I was willing to put myself out there one more time and take a risk (3rd time was indeed the charm!). Kinda like taking the risk to change jobs/careers/go back to school, etc. But if you don't try, you'll never know what you potentially could miss. Then comes regret, and with regret oftentimes comes bitterness.

I hope the OP is able to work through whatever issues he is dealing with at this time that prevents him from being open to falling in love. No feeling out there like it. Period. As trite as this may sound, learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all. To me that means one needs to have a successful relationship with ones' self and only then can one successfully look outward for love.

Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, a few too many...I wish the OP the best and hope one day soon you find the Yin to your Yang. Peace to all.

 

[socalfreak]

 

[KennF]

Everyone is talking about how difficult relationships are, yet only vaguely defining the benefits of a relationship or saying that it's just what people do. I find that interesting.

The reason you got all the responses you did....that's what you asked.

You didn't ask "what do you get out of it?"
You did ask, "doesn't it show a sign of weakness?"

You asked a leading question and got a directed answer.
Ask a different question and you'll get a different answer.

 

[wallyj84]

KennF, you've made some interesting points. I don't agree with all of them, but they were interesting. You're right, my question was a bit leading, but I don't think you're correct in your positive view of relationships. You seem to think that relationships can help a person to grow. That's a fair opinion and you explained it well, but I disagree. You make yourself weak when you need help from someone else. Even if that help makes you a better person, you still become weak because you lose a bit of yourself when you need others to help you. The only way to truly gain strength is to do it alone. That's my opinion at least.

Also, you're wrong about the situation with Fade. It was a contest. Everything is a contest or struggle between two or more opposing forces. You struggle and fight with everyone and everything around you until the day you die. That's life.

 

[KennF]

You make yourself weak when you need help from someone else.

That's your perception. I disagree. And I say so because you interject "need" into it. Being in a relationship is not about "needing" your spouse/partner. It is about wanting.

I don't need my husband to do the laundry or to support me emotionally. He doesn't need me to cook or to earn the level of income I do.

If I didn't cook, he'd eat differently. If he didn't support me emotionally, I'd adapt differently. If I earned less, we would live a different style. If he didn't do the laundry, I'd go back and do it on my schedule.

Being in the relationship is about wanting. Wanting how I feel when we're together. Wanting to share moments. Wanting to help him do more or be better. And enjoying the way I feel when he does that for me in return. I don't need that. I want that.

Everything is a contest or struggle between two or more opposing forces. You struggle and fight with everyone and everything around you until the day you die. That's life.

This opinion will change with time. You may feel that way now. I used to feel that way. Then I realized, for me, I don't need to beat someone to be better. I don't have to fight life to live. And I'm not fighting death to live either. There are two or more perspectives on everything and every experience, but you do choose whether you want to fight or not.

For example, you could have ignored Fades comments. You chose to empower them and argue back. She may have provoked you, but it was your choice to take the bait. In so choosing, you gave greater weight and import to her opinions, than had you chosen to ignore them.

It has been one of the most difficult lessons for me in my life, to realize that I am the one that chooses to argue when I do. And I used to argue with everyone over anything. After a lot of years, I realized I was gaining nothing by the arguing. The arguments were, in your phrasing, making me weak.

Just some food for thought.

 

[temptotalk]

That's your perception. I disagree. And I say so because you interject "need" into it. Being in a relationship is not about "needing" your spouse/partner. It is about wanting.

I don't need my husband to do the laundry or to support me emotionally. He doesn't need me to cook or to earn the level of income I do.

If I didn't cook, he'd eat differently. If he didn't support me emotionally, I'd adapt differently. If I earned less, we would live a different style. If he didn't do the laundry, I'd go back and do it on my schedule.

Being in the relationship is about wanting. Wanting how I feel when we're together. Wanting to share moments. Wanting to help him do more or be better. And enjoying the way I feel when he does that for me in return. I don't need that. I want that.



This opinion will change with time. You may feel that way now. I used to feel that way. Then I realized, for me, I don't need to beat someone to be better. I don't have to fight life to live. And I'm not fighting death to live either. There are two or more perspectives on everything and every experience, but you do choose whether you want to fight or not.

For example, you could have ignored Fades comments. You chose to empower them and argue back. She may have provoked you, but it was your choice to take the bait. In so choosing, you gave greater weight and import to her opinions, than had you chosen to ignore them.

It has been one of the most difficult lessons for me in my life, to realize that I am the one that chooses to argue when I do. And I used to argue with everyone over anything. After a lot of years, I realized I was gaining nothing by the arguing. The arguments were, in your phrasing, making me weak.

Just some food for thought.

Yeah but i'm curious whats your definition of want and need.

Other than that, you're still making a choice in either engaging or not. Most would see not engaging as losing either the struggle or contest. It's yet another narrative many of us accept. Even not engaging could be considered a form of fighting depending on the situation.

 

[wallyj84]

That's your perception. I disagree. And I say so because you interject "need" into it. Being in a relationship is not about "needing" your spouse/partner. It is about wanting.

I don't need my husband to do the laundry or to support me emotionally. He doesn't need me to cook or to earn the level of income I do.

If I didn't cook, he'd eat differently. If he didn't support me emotionally, I'd adapt differently. If I earned less, we would live a different style. If he didn't do the laundry, I'd go back and do it on my schedule.

Being in the relationship is about wanting. Wanting how I feel when we're together. Wanting to share moments. Wanting to help him do more or be better. And enjoying the way I feel when he does that for me in return. I don't need that. I want that.

But wanting that is weak. You shouldn't want to be with other people. They only take away your energy and corrupt your sense of self. You might think that they're helping your become a better person, but they're only turning you into what they want. They're essentially killing the real you.

This opinion will change with time. You may feel that way now. I used to feel that way. Then I realized, for me, I don't need to beat someone to be better. I don't have to fight life to live. And I'm not fighting death to live either. There are two or more perspectives on everything and every experience, but you do choose whether you want to fight or not.

For example, you could have ignored Fades comments. You chose to empower them and argue back. She may have provoked you, but it was your choice to take the bait. In so choosing, you gave greater weight and import to her opinions, than had you chosen to ignore them.

It has been one of the most difficult lessons for me in my life, to realize that I am the one that chooses to argue when I do. And I used to argue with everyone over anything. After a lot of years, I realized I was gaining nothing by the arguing. The arguments were, in your phrasing, making me weak.

Just some food for thought.

Temptotalk already gave a pretty good response to this. Ill just parrot him a bit and say that if I hadn't responded, I would have lost and Fade would have won. What would that have made me? A failure.

 

[KennF]

But wanting that is weak. You shouldn't want to be with other people. They only take away your energy and corrupt your sense of self. You might think that they're helping your become a better person, but they're only turning you into what they want. They're essentially killing the real you.

*chuckle* You're turning the argument circular. Your asking a question that presupposes that the answer is yes. And for argument in favor of yes, you are saying it is yes, because no is 'not yes'. It's rather black and white.

You philosophy suggests that wanting more happiness or enjoyment is the opposite of not having any happiness or enjoyment. Instead of considering degrees and understanding that there are 'shades of gray' in life. I accept that is your philosophy, but it is limited.

Going back to our analogy of physical strength, you suggest that if you can life 200lbs, but can't life 300lbs, that you're weak. When in your life, you will never be called to life upon 300lbs. And since you and someone else can life and carry 200lbs farther and easier, that it is weakness. And further, that since there is enjoyment in lifting and carrying the 200lbs with that person, it is weak.

Taking that to its ultimate stance, then everyone is weak, since none of us can lift 500lbs alone.

 

[KennF]

What would that have made me?

It would have made you ... you.

I counter and ask if everything is always going to be a fight, then you are going to be easily distracted in life. If a goal is to get to the finish line (new house, new job, college degree, trip to Norway, whatever), and you stop and argue with every person along the way, you are distracted from your goal.

If you want to become the boss in a company, and you fight with every entry level colleague to prove you are right, then you are just being argumentative and not successful. You may be winning the battles and losing the war, in your vernacular.

The success is found in choosing which battles to fight and which to ignore because they aren't worth your time. I don't push find it wise to force your opinions onto people to the point where they don't consider your opinions worth their time. In those cases, you may have won the battle, but only created more obstacles for yourself in the future.

You can take it for what its worth, or, ignore it, or attempt to argue. Either way, that is your choice.

And for your sake, I'll allow you the final word. Have at it.

 

[KennF]

*chuckle* You're turning the argument circular. Your asking a question that presupposes that the answer is yes. And for argument in favor of yes, you are saying it is yes, because no is 'not yes'. It's rather black and white.

You philosophy suggests that wanting more happiness or enjoyment is the opposite of not having any happiness or enjoyment. Instead of considering degrees and understanding that there are 'shades of gray' in life. I accept that is your philosophy, but it is limited.

Going back to our analogy of physical strength, you suggest that if you can life 200lbs, but can't life 300lbs, that you're weak. When in your life, you will never be called to life upon 300lbs. And since you and someone else can life and carry 200lbs farther and easier, that it is weakness. And further, that since there is enjoyment in lifting and carrying the 200lbs with that person, it is weak.

Taking that to its ultimate stance, then everyone is weak, since none of us can lift 500lbs alone.

I wonder why it autocorrected lift to life?

 

[wallyj84]

*chuckle* You're turning the argument circular. Your asking a question that presupposes that the answer is yes. And for argument in favor of yes, you are saying it is yes, because no is 'not yes'. It's rather black and white.

You philosophy suggests that wanting more happiness or enjoyment is the opposite of not having any happiness or enjoyment. Instead of considering degrees and understanding that there are 'shades of gray' in life. I accept that is your philosophy, but it is limited.

Going back to our analogy of physical strength, you suggest that if you can life 200lbs, but can't life 300lbs, that you're weak. When in your life, you will never be called to life upon 300lbs. And since you and someone else can life and carry 200lbs farther and easier, that it is weakness. And further, that since there is enjoyment in lifting and carrying the 200lbs with that person, it is weak.

Taking that to its ultimate stance, then everyone is weak, since none of us can lift 500lbs alone.

I don't think my philosophy suggests that wanting more happiness is the opposite of NOT having happiness or enjoyment. I think that if you want more or greater happiness than you're not truly happy and that other people can only harm you by sapping your energy and eliminating your sense of self. I think the only way to truly be happy is to forsake other people and discover the you that exists outside of your interactions with and the expectations of others.

 

[Doranq]

Answer: No.Having a desire in of itself is not a weakness

I don't think my philosophy suggests that wanting more happiness is the opposite of NOT having happiness or enjoyment. I think that if you want more or greater happiness than you're not truly happy and that other people can only harm you by sapping your energy and eliminating your sense of self. I think the only way to truly be happy is to forsake other people and discover the you that exists outside of your interactions with and the expectations of others.

Serious series of questions.

Do you enjoy


Chess
Video games
Power lifting
Justin Bieber
Seafood
Raw Eggs
Basketball
Croquet
Knitting
Snuff Films


If you answer those and you'll get an incredible answer in response. :3

 

[wallyj84]

Answer: No.Having a desire in of itself is not a weakness


Serious series of questions.

Do you enjoy


Chess
Video games
Power lifting
Justin Bieber
Seafood
Raw Eggs
Basketball
Croquet
Knitting
Snuff Films


If you answer those and you'll get an incredible answer in response. :3

I enjoy video games, seafood and basketball. Why?