Get Your Own Picket Fence (Or Don’t) : A Note on Relationships

My friend & fellow blogger Carlos Miceli of Owl Sparks once told me that he was relieved that I never waxed on about relationships here on the site, which I had sort of made an unspoken rule.

But what can I say? I’m a rule breaker, baby. Even when they’re my own.

And with that, I’m busting out the L-word.

Love.

There, I said it.

Being the idealist that I am, you might imagine that I’d be the type to wear my heart on my sleeve, doodle mini-cupids around my lover’s name and nonchalantly lounge around in vintage clawfoot tub-fulls of fine French champagne, while draped in pearl necklaces and plucking petals from fresh-picked daisies murmuring to myself, “He loves me?… He loves me not.”

Aside: What ever happened to, “I love him?… I love him not.” I really must be an idealist.

While the sounds of anything “champagne” and “clawfoot” make me go wild, that lovely little image couldn’t be farther from the truth of who I am. Of all things, I tend to be obscenely practical with matters of the heart, and have always been rather skeptical that one lone person could ever possibly fulfill all of another’s needs–or should be expected to.

And isn’t that what we ask of our partners? We don’t simply ask for their love; we expect (and demand) that person to not only be our partner, but to be our everything. We demand they be our emotional support, our financial stability, our intimate lovers, our best friends; we expect them to be sexy but sensitive, spontaneous but grounded, romantic but practical, intelligent but not stuffy, and funny but with a serious side.

But most of all, our greatest demand is that our partner be our source of happiness.

I don’t know about you, but that seems to be a pretty tall order.

While it’s obvious that one’s partner should, by all means, be a source of happiness, they cannot be the primary source of happiness. I won’t go into all of the feel-good literature on taking responsibility for one’s own happiness–we already know that stuff.

Most of us claim to be looking for love. Sure, who doesn’t want late night full-body rubs and someone feeding you bon bons by the handful? (Sign-up sheet soon to follow.) But on the same token, we seem to confuse looking for love with looking for that one person that’s going to make us complete, buy us a picket fence, pay the bills, and show up in a red cape (or red bikini, your choice) anytime the lawn needs mowing. In other words, someone that provides us with security.

Some might say they’re the same, but in many cases, they aren’t. If we’re capable of completing ourselves and getting our own picket fence, if we so desire, then we’re free to concentrate on love–not whether or not Bachelor Number 1 makes enough money or not. And doesn’t it seem like happiness would come more naturally that way on its own?

The point is this: We tend to make decisions about the relationships we engage in based on some future projection of who that person will be at a later point in life. We suss out their career choices and figure that if so and so is going to be a pharmacist, then so and so is a good catch, because to us, “good catch” = money = security.

But imagine if you were already secure, for example, and you were able to take that out of the equation.

Would you still pick the same way?

Note: That wasn’t “obscenely practical” of me at all, was it? Learn new things about myself everyday.

If you liked that jazz. . .check out some of these:

Enter your email below to receive new posts straight to your inbox. And maybe nude photos. But probably not. Perv.

wedding shoes

Couldn’t be written any better. Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept talking about this wedding shoes. This way even more people can enjoy your posts Cheap Wedding Accessories and nothing beats a big audiance .I’m very certain they will understand lots of new stuff here than anybody else. I do appreciate that youve added relevant and intelligent commentary here though.wedding dress on sale Thank you!
Barbara Jamelli

From the words of “The Prophet” by Kahlil Gibran:
Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.

In other words, love and being your own person (operative words: YOUR OWN PERSON) can and should mutually co-exist

TMFproject

@Barb
What beautiful prose–thanks for sharing that here. That's exactly the point, isn't it? (Just put much more eloquently than I could have ever said it!)

Too often, we get so wrapped up in one another, that we become one. To some, that seems like it should be the goal. To the wise, it's clear that that's the first mistake. But we only learn though trial and error, right?

http://simplytrece.wordpress.com Trece

Would I pick the same way? Absolutely NOT!! I'd probably stay single. And happy. Sigh…
http://www.solitarypanda.com floreta

ah I love talking about love (Note: prepare for nonsensical rambling) Not in the girly way (I hope). I like to think of myself as a cynical romantic.. And, yep, I've been guilty of this unreasonably absurd expectations and demands of a significant other. And that relationship ended up in resentment really quick. Codependency really sucks!! That's why I'm just trying to be secure for the first time ever! It's such an awesome feeling.

I think all these concepts you talk about are just immature ideas on love.. That most people have in their earlier 20s and hopefully realize their senses by their late 20s/30s (not that there's a certain timeline for this kind of thing). Of course, some people don't ever realize it and that's sad. There is also realizing things intellectually, as I've tended to “know” these things in my earlier 20s but for the life of me could not dig myself out of the unhealthy situation of my relationship and really KNOW it emotionally.

These days, I tend to think that its impossible and unfair to expect to really KNOW/understand your partner inside out and be their everything. People are still unique individuals with their own view of the world. You can't get into anyone elses brain. My mistakes in the past were that I tended to want to really understand my partner and felt myself/my relationship a failure when I couldn't. Alienation and problems ensued. It's not about complete understanding with the other person so much as just giving them your complete support. You should be their #1 cheerleader but also secure and complete enough as individuals to know you can't rely on them for happiness. It's a fine balance. And basically no one has complete control over their emotions and that's why we've got such screwed up relationships. Which is what makes me a cynic..

The good part is that relationships are just a mirror to yourself. So, if you think a relationship is whats going to make you happy, and want someone to be your everything, that'll just mirror your unhealthy relationship with self and subconsciously attract the kind of codependent partner to bring about a negative/unhealthy cycle. If you're an awesome asskicker and completely secure on your own, you will (in theory) have an awesome asskicking relationship!! Right?? Right… The downside to this is that it would be hard to give up your awesome asskicking freedom at that point and figure out how to merge as a couple.. Too MUCH independence and not enough of it.. I've always been on one extreme or the other. And so, I'm still a cynic.

TMFproject

@Floreta
Damn girl, we need to get you a talk show, STAT. I'm not even kidding. You're absolutely brilliant.

I really loved your distinction between knowing something intellectually and knowing something emotionally. As human beings, we always act on emotion (that's what sales copy is geared toward, for example), and then justify with logic later. So you're right when you say we can't control our emotions–sometimes, the only thing we can do is ride them out.

What a conundrum!

YOU'RE the one who has me thinking today!!!

lifedecomplicated

I agree that we can not link our happiness to just one single person, that would make us needy and dependent and might I add very unattractive. But in my experience it really does help to have one special long term relationship PROVIDED we make room for a wider circle of friends.

That is the key to happiness, connecting with a wide variety of people on a friendship level, but when it comes to intimacy and sex – that goes beyond friendship – and way different forces apply. But that is another subject on it's own.

TMFproject

@Dave
Yes, I agree! Except I think that it's less common to find than it sounds, which is disheartening. I always promote human connection as one of the greatest forces that can bring us so much happiness, energy, vitality and spirit….but it does raise the question, where's the line to be drawn between not enough connection and too much connection? On the same token, I've found myself at times taxed by the numbers of people that are in my life–having to keep up with everyone is exhausting alone–yet at the same time, I am so grateful for their existence.

http://www.Escapingthe9to5.com/ Maren Kate

You are so right, it's important to look at the guy/girl/other as what they are and say “if this is IT am I okay with that” = also the whole talk about clawfeet (word?), champagne and bubbles made me really want to go a French vacation.

TMFproject

@MarenKate
Clawfeet! Right? Ha.

I've never been to France, but perhaps I should take a little jaunt on over there ASAP………;)

TJ_The_Bartender

Love the ideal of looking for happiness over anything else, been following that for years even if it hasn't exactly worked out for me. Though it has been thinly veiled with the easy phrase of “I don't date” I kinda wish more people would think like that. Who cares about having someone that make as much money as you would ever need, when you could have someone that can come home with a new life lesson and a bottle of liquor to share??

(p.s. Can they have both a cape and a bikini, and where is this so called sign up sheet?)

TMFproject

@TJ the Bartender
You know, I've done the whole “I don't date” thing myself. I might still sort of be there. In my past experience, relationships have served to hold me back rather than push me forward, and I shutter at the thought. Though, I've got to remind myself that it's probably just because I haven't been in the right ones.

P.S. Go to http://www.waybelowstatusquo.com, sign up to visit us when we come to a city near you & I will gladly wear a cape and a bikini. Mostly because that'd be hilarious. :p

TJ_The_Bartender

Totally agreed. If you get a chance to hear the stories of what happened in my last 3 “flings” you'd be surprised how shitty things got.

P.S. Already signed up and pushing of the 7 cities of Southern Virginia!

Pingback: Some Saturday Linky Love | Making A Home And Family
http://benmoreno.net/ Ben Moreno

Wow Ash…I think you just taught me something. I had a good idea of this but you put it into such eloquent words. This further enforces my belief that there are no “soul mates” like people tend to put it.

TMFproject

@Ben Moreno
Ah, I giggle at the thought of soul mates. There are certainly many, many people that might semi-qualify, but to assert that there is one person among the billions seems a bit kooky, no? Nice, heart-warming idea…realistic? Not so much.

Good to see you here, my friend!

http://www.silverbluepearl.blogspot.com Chris

What a fantastic post! I have always thought that expecting your lover to be your everything is unrealistic, unfair and just asking for future heartache. You said it so much better than I could. Bravo!

TMFproject

@Chris
I wonder how much of that expectation is socially constructed, rather than biologically hard-wired into us….I would have to guess a large percentage.

Thanks for the kind words!

http://www.theskooloflife.com SRinivas

I went through a phase of my life when I was younger where I thought that a relationship was the answer to all my problems. I thought finding somebody else would make me happy. Then I found myself in relationships with people who were completely screwing up all the other parts of my life. I think that if we seek relationships from a place of looking to other people to complete us then we set ourselves up in a dangerous emotional happiness. I think if a person compliments your happiness that's fine. If they complete it, then you have a problem.

TMFproject

@Srinivas
I once dated someone who told me that without me, he'd be completely lost. That was when I knew that it needed to end, because I couldn't imagine having the burden of being someone's everything….nor couldn't imagine what he was going through himself if that were the case.

I think the grand conclusion here is this:

Relationships are weird.

The end.

http://www.fearlessendeavors.com/ Nate

I don't think love is an illusion. The idea of this separateness we have from the rest of the world is really the ultimate illusion. I do agree that another person can't necessarily be the source of happiness…just as a career, job, vacation, etc, etc, etc can't necessarily be the source of happiness. That comes from within and we can only find it within ourselves when we let go of all of these attachments we have about how things should be or what something is.

Is it good to be dependent one way or the other? By that, I mean is someone who is overly dependent on a relationship as a source of their happiness any better than someone who is overly dependent on creating this sense of a self that is independent and separate as a source of their happiness?

Love is more about complete surrender and acceptance rather than those initial feelings we usually associate with love (excitement, newness, novelty, etc). In relationships, it involves in intense sense of being and recognition. An understanding and acceptance of the other person as they are by dropping any of our own labels, notions and wanting we may have or accept. It's about recognizing the person's uniqueness and separateness while at the same time having an understanding of the underlying connection and wholeness you share. To love, you need to let go.

TMFproject

@Nate
Buddy, can you set up a course on this and then administer it to me and all my gal pals? Seriously, what awesome insight. Being overly dependent on yourself is, too, a flaw–you're right–we have to be open just as much as we have to remain distant. Interesting to ponder….

http://www.sexycopy.org k0zm0zs0ul

I think that people who choose relationships and mates based primarily on “security” factors are doing themselves a disservice. When you choose a mate it should be because you love that person, he makes your heart beat faster and makes you laugh, and treats you well, and holds the same sort of core (note: not EVERYTHING you think should be the same.. that'd be boring!) values and outlook as you yourself do.

To work long term, you need to want the same things out of life, and be able to work together as a unit to achieve them. Things like what kind of job you have, what kind of car you drive, what kind of house you live in, etc.. those things are transient.. they can change faster than the tide can turn. Personality, core values, emotional and physical connections… those are built in and won't tend to change too much as time goes on. And those are the things you should be basing your relationships around… and not just when it comes to your mate either!

http://www.valeriemondesir.com Valerie M

I do agree with you that people who choose mates solely for 'security' reasons are doing themselves a disservice, but someone who chooses a mate SOLELY for love, regardless of whether the person is a trustworthy, generally likeable person (because you can love someone without liking them) with a good shoulder on their heads is just setting yourself up for misery and drama. And if you surround yourself with misery and drama, you put your own thought processes at risk… which results in you devaluing yourself and imposing self-limitations. I notice a pattern with both men and women who had a few bad choices in mates and end up making the same mistake over and over. They sure didn't pick the mate for 'security' since these people didn't have many redeeming qualities or motivations, tangible or not — but are they any happier for it? Isn't asserting some degree of control over your environment an important part of developing your thought processes? This includes the people you associate with and the mates you choose. I think that's where the 'security' thing comes in for some people.

I do agree that a lot of people have a bunch of frivolous, material 'requirements' and 'markers' for their potential mates. I am on board with you there, k0zm0zs0ul! Unfortunately some of these 'markers' of success and personality traits are tricky, because they aren't strongly correlated. But they are 'markers' for a reason — there is a grain of truth to them.

Eh, a post within a post. You gotta love 'em!

http://www.sexycopy.org k0zm0zs0ul

Ha ha… I love posts within posts! No, I agree that choosing a mate and not considering flaws and general life choices is not a good idea. My thing is that a mate doesn't have to be rich or own nice things, in order to be a good mate. Hell, I make plenty all on my own, and can support myself and my family just fine these days, and I like it that way. It gives me feelings of confidence, independence, and personal satisfaction. And I have friends with plenty of those nice things, but they're not happy in their relationships, the nice things and the 'security' does absolutely nothing for their happiness. It just provides a secure environment to be miserable together, or a chain they feel unable to walk away from because they've worked too hard to build it.

And as I said, choosing a mate should come not just from love but from other factors such as how he treats you, whether or not you have the same core values and beliefs, whether or not you have the same goals. That's not basing a decision solely on love, that's factoring love in and then also considering the other important aspects of a relationship, which are- belief systems, goals, values, etc.

Choosing a mate simply because he can 'provide' the home and lifestyle you think you want, is a quick road to misery in my book. I think ultimately what relationships boil down to is “Does this person make you happy? Can you build a life with them that you can appreciate and be grateful for? Can you respect them and love them despite hard times that always make an appearance? And honestly I think the answers to those questions only come after an extensive bit of personal growth in yourself.

I've had a tumultuous relationship with my guy for 12 years. We've both made bad decisions in our relationship and we've both made good ones. We've had hard times and we've had wonderful times. A lot of that can be attributed to the fact that I was 17 when we got together, and we had kids very young.. we both had a lot of growing up to do.

But either way, ultimately it's up to you to be smart enough to be clear on the things you want and don't want, and be happy with the choices you make everyday. And the bottom line is who am I to judge the decisions of others? I can only make decisions that feel right for me.

TMFproject

@Cori
I think you've identified why long-term relationships aren't my game right now–”to work long term, you need to want the same things out of life.” It's rare that I find the guy willing to haphazardly traverse the globe and take all of the risk along with the exhilaration that accompanies it.

Too often, we make choices in mates because of chemistry, which is great, but inevitably will have an expiration date. So to that end, I suppose it depends on one's goals.

Thank you for leaving such a lovely, well-thought out comment. Much appreciated!!!

http://www.JoshuaBest.net Joshua Best

I agree with your post. I also agree with Carlos's comment – there is a lot more to a working relationship then love – whatever love really means.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind about a good relationship is that you can depend on each other, but are not dependent on each other.

TMFproject

@Joshua Best
We need to get that quote in a book somewhere! “You can depend on each other, but are not dependent on each other.” Wonderful advice. Thanks for taking the time to share.

http://www.JoshuaBest.net Joshua Best

If you do – you can't give me credit – I heard it somewhere… I'm just not sure where.

http://thirtytwothousanddays.com/ Jack B

This reminds me of a gender-neutral framing of David Deida's advice to men, that it is best when a man makes his purpose primary in his life, rather than his female partner.

Too often, it's too big a responsibility for a partner / lover / spouse to ensure that a person is happy, and that ecstatic new love can invert just as rapidly as it arrived – “but you were supposed to make me HAPPY!”

Releasing that expectation, and appreciating your partner for whoever he or she is, reasserts the balance and places the relationship in its proper context.

TMFproject

@Jack B

Hey there–welcome to the site. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

David Deida's advice sounds pretty spot on to me–as much as I just adoreeee the male species, engaging in a relationship is a huge commitment, both time-wise, energy-wise and emotions-wise. And I suppose physical-wise as well, depending. And as much as that person can energize you, on the same token, it can also be quite draining. Hard to concentrate on big picture goals when enveloped with another person's needs as well. So, as you've said……release the expectation. Place the relationship in its proper context. Excellent.

Thanks again for stopping by.

http://www.jcphitchcock.com Joshua @ H2BA

I think this post is worth you breaking your rule Ash! I see a lot of people who are in relationships not necessarily because they want to be but because they need to be. Some have even commented to me that they do not know how to exist outside of a relationship. That is a sad state of affairs.

I was single for seven years (prefering to date then to have long-term relationships) between the ages of 18 and 24 and I believe that because of this I have learnt to be independent and to find happiness in who I am and what I do and not in the arms of another. You say we expect our love to be our everything – I believe that we alone are our everything. This is not to deny the wonderfulness of a loving relationship – I have been with my girlfriend for the past 13 months now and it has been an incredibly rewarding experience. Neither of us needs each other, instead we are together because we want to be with each other. Being separated by half a country (and soon, by half a world!) means that we have our own lives, something I consider to be a vitally important part of a lasting relationship.

As for your question, I am secure in my job and my life so my decision was based on the fact that this young lady is simply an amazing person to spend my time with. She is ambitious, intelligent, gorgeous and definitely unconventional! Personally, I do not believe that you should enter into a relationship if you do not have your life sorted – if you cannot provide yourself with enough care and attention then how are you going to provide the same to someone else.

http://twitter.com/Alentijns Kristof Alentijns

I totally know what you mean about those people not knowing how to exist outside of a relationship and it is indeed quite sad. I believe many of those couples stay together for the sake of convenience (or at least one of the partners does).

I've heard people say they are afraid to end up alone or are scared if they end a relationship it'll take too long (or indefinitely) to find someone better and although I guess I can somewhat understand that feeling, the moment you start thinking that way, it's probably time to end it.

About Ashley's question, I'm totally looking for a hot blond thing with a rich daddy; applications through email with picture and bank statements please .
TMFproject

@Joshua H2BA
What an excellent comment. Thanks so much for taking the time to share with us!

You know, I've found that some of the best relationships that I've had in the past, were when I've been living in another country. It gives me time to breathe, live my life, and still be able to share it with someone. Granted, it's on a more limited basis and maybe that's just me, but I need the time to be able to completely engross myself right now in my goals, and then have a relationship as a secondary affair. And then whenever I need a vacation, I hop a plane! Ha.

Thanks so much for your comment.

http://jennahasnoidea.blogspot.com Jenna

my favorite thing about my boyfriend, as I've told my two best friends, is that I am so happy with him, but I am almost as happy without him. I love the life I had before him, so he's just the icing on the cake. He's just as monetarily broke as I am, but we're able to spend time together and enjoy going on walks and running through the rain and cuddling up and watching movies, and when we fall in love (if that happens), it will be wonderful without being all consuming. None of that codependent bullshit i used to deal with!

TMFproject

@Jenna
You hit the nail on the head with the words “all-consuming” and “co-dependent.” I'm not sure why, but many people seem to get wrapped up in that type of relationship, be it out of insecurity or a giant void that they're trying to fill with that other person. I imagine it's a symptom of something far deeper that we're missing, you know?

http://www.owlsparks.com/ Carlos Miceli

Love is an illusion, many things matter more when it comes to a working relationship, should you want to have one.

PS: You're still cool, even your relationship posts are different than most ladies'

TMFproject

True, except most people don't regard love as an ilusion. I suppose I tend to speak from my no-relationship policy, which makes it really easy to not have to concentrate on those things that make them workable. Then again, I rather like having the liberty to simply appreciate the person I'm with for the moment, and not have anything else on my agenda but the enjoyment derived from the interaction.