Following on from my post about ''getting involved'' a couple of weeks ago, I am pretty stoked to learn that (in part) as a result of my sticking my nose in, the couple I talked about are getting themselves on track. How awesome is that!
I've had cause to talk about that particular post with a number of people, and almost without exception they have agreed that whilst the ideal is to be brave enough to have an opinion, most don't do it. There's a variety of reasons, but largely it's simply that - and no one would actually admit to it - most people are pretty busy with their own lives and really don't have the time, or inclination to get involved with someone Else's. It involves risk, it involves commitment, and it also just might mean some inconvenience where you really don't want or need it.
But here's the thing. Experience tells me that one of the perils of social and electronic media (and I've written about this before) is how easy it is to offer the commitment of non commitment. Things like ''well come and visit me sometime'', or ''you know I'm here at the end of the phone if you need me''. It invites the troubled person to make the first move...to be supportive without actually giving real support. Not always a bad thing, granted, as there are plenty of times that a person hurting just needs to know that there is someone there if they need them.
But, and for me this is a BIG but...for the person who is hurting, especially when it is as a result of a problem in a relationship (IE the person you are closest to is now no longer the one you can call on for support), there can be a real reluctance to actually ask for help or support from outside. Fear of what you might be told, fear of having to talk about something painful, whatever, its really easy for the hurting person to retreat within themselves. I know, I've done it.
I've read a number of things that describe love as an action. That it's about ''showing up'' emotionally, not just going along for the ride.
Well, actually I think it's also as much about showing up physically. I was told recently by someone newly separated that I was the only person who had actually checked in regularly -the only one who had actually ''turned up'' physically in this persons life. That both shocked and saddened me. Where were the friends? They had offered support, absolutely - call me, text me, visit me. But none had actually got on the phone, or in the car, and showed up. I even asked a couple of them...did you call yet? Visit? And if not why not? And I got the same response...oh well, it's not really my journey...they know where I am...I don't really know what to do/say (as per http://single-minded-endeavours.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/its-what-friend-would-do.html)
Yes there's a risk. There's a huge risk that the person you doorstep will tell you to go away. The person you phone will say ''I don't want to talk about it''. The opinion you give (if asked for it or not) will be rejected or denied. You might even find yourself being rejected in the moment - for whatever reason, your presence, at that time, is not welcome or needed. Maybe you represent something the hurting person doesn't want to see or feel. Maybe they are talked out.
Frankly, I don't give a damn. People who are hurting need people to show up. Regardless of the ending and who did it, someone who has just left a relationship is sore - they are probably feeling unloved or unlovable. As the supportive friend, you're probably not the one they want to feel loved by but that doesn't mean you shouldn't love them anyway. They might not appreciate it at the time - you might not be the right person, and the timing might really really suck - but at least they need to know that someone - maybe more than just one - actually cares about them. Sometimes it means giving an unpopular opinion - sometimes it means just listening (personally I'm in favour of the unpopular opinion, because I reckon 99% of the time, that's the truth. Listening and empathising does little more than make a hurt person feel better about their hurt - often necessary, sometimes the easy option ).
Yes, I've been told I'm unwelcome. Yes it hurts. And I know when to take my leave. But in my world, it is about showing up. Putting your money where your mouth is, and actually being there for someone when they need you, even if they don't admit to it.
Showing posts with label commitment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commitment. Show all posts
forming storming norming
There's a commonly known business model, first developed back in the 1960's, which describes the process that a team goes through to become effective - storming norming performing et al has been evolved to include a few extra rhyming words but essentially talks about the teething problems, ''getting to know you' stage, boundary setting, and (hopefully) fully formed and healthy state a team can get into.
There's been some jokes around my house recently that the same model could be applied to personal relationships. I'm not quite sure which bit I'm sitting in at the moment - in fact I'd argue that its a fairly fluid model (much like the grief process, it can be two steps forward and one back some times!), but when I found myself using the ''royal we'' a few days ago it did highlight to me that maybe there's less forming and storming going on and maybe a gentle incline (sounds better than decline!) into norming and performing.
I've read loads of stuff about the process of re partnering. I'm the first to admit that the are a lot of potential challenges, and its as much about the rest of each persons team as it is about themselves - kids, extended family, friends, work, interests - there's a heck of a lot to negotiate and learn about. For me, so far so good - or should I say, for us, and whilst the forming and storming is a lot of fun, I'm also looking forward to settling into the new way of normal that I have talked about here before.
Interestingly on the link above there's two extra stages - Dorming and Adjourning. My guess is that this is probably more relevant to a time bound project, but it certainly highlights the need to remain focused on the well being of the ''team'' in order to avoid complacency (surely one of the death knolls for any relationship) and also to remain vigilant to the potential challenges and pitfalls that can trip up even the most committed of partners.
If you're in a new relationship, or even one that's not so new, where do you think you might fit on this continuum?
There's been some jokes around my house recently that the same model could be applied to personal relationships. I'm not quite sure which bit I'm sitting in at the moment - in fact I'd argue that its a fairly fluid model (much like the grief process, it can be two steps forward and one back some times!), but when I found myself using the ''royal we'' a few days ago it did highlight to me that maybe there's less forming and storming going on and maybe a gentle incline (sounds better than decline!) into norming and performing.
I've read loads of stuff about the process of re partnering. I'm the first to admit that the are a lot of potential challenges, and its as much about the rest of each persons team as it is about themselves - kids, extended family, friends, work, interests - there's a heck of a lot to negotiate and learn about. For me, so far so good - or should I say, for us, and whilst the forming and storming is a lot of fun, I'm also looking forward to settling into the new way of normal that I have talked about here before.
Interestingly on the link above there's two extra stages - Dorming and Adjourning. My guess is that this is probably more relevant to a time bound project, but it certainly highlights the need to remain focused on the well being of the ''team'' in order to avoid complacency (surely one of the death knolls for any relationship) and also to remain vigilant to the potential challenges and pitfalls that can trip up even the most committed of partners.
If you're in a new relationship, or even one that's not so new, where do you think you might fit on this continuum?
relationship fallacies part one: it's too hard
I've certainly been given my share of excuses as to why someone didn't want a relationship with me, and I've blogged about that on a number of occasions.
I'm the first to agree that it can be scary getting into something new.
Past baggage sure can get in the way and throw itself off the luggage rack at the most inopportune moments! The things that are button pushers for one may not even be a consideration for the other. The expectations of one might be quite different to the other. The energy levels, degree of commitment, extraneous life issues, all could potentially causeproblems challenges.
But here's the thing:
What if, instead of saying ''it's all too hard to be in a relationship with you'' we could simply do it anyway, and worry about that stuff once you're there?
Absolutely have a plan (a strategy and a preferred outcome!), but I think much like taking on an employee, or starting a business, or trying a new hobby - it starts with the will to make it happen and the belief that ultimately, it is a good decision.
My argument here is that BEING in a relationship - whether it's a romantic one, a friendship, a work partnership - probably is hard. All the things up there will apply at some point or another. But GETTING into a relationship shouldn't be. Simply put, you either want it, or you don't. Working on the theory that you do (that you are assuming success, however that might look down the track), gives both people the freedom to be themselves, and spend their energy on finding solutions and outcomes, rather than focusing on the obstacles and potential failure points.
So it follows then, to me anyway, that the person who says ''I don't want to be in a relationship'' probably means with you, because if you want it, you make it happen and then worry about the detail later.
True? False? Idealistic?
I'm the first to agree that it can be scary getting into something new.
Past baggage sure can get in the way and throw itself off the luggage rack at the most inopportune moments! The things that are button pushers for one may not even be a consideration for the other. The expectations of one might be quite different to the other. The energy levels, degree of commitment, extraneous life issues, all could potentially cause
But here's the thing:
What if, instead of saying ''it's all too hard to be in a relationship with you'' we could simply do it anyway, and worry about that stuff once you're there?
Absolutely have a plan (a strategy and a preferred outcome!), but I think much like taking on an employee, or starting a business, or trying a new hobby - it starts with the will to make it happen and the belief that ultimately, it is a good decision.
My argument here is that BEING in a relationship - whether it's a romantic one, a friendship, a work partnership - probably is hard. All the things up there will apply at some point or another. But GETTING into a relationship shouldn't be. Simply put, you either want it, or you don't. Working on the theory that you do (that you are assuming success, however that might look down the track), gives both people the freedom to be themselves, and spend their energy on finding solutions and outcomes, rather than focusing on the obstacles and potential failure points.
So it follows then, to me anyway, that the person who says ''I don't want to be in a relationship'' probably means with you, because if you want it, you make it happen and then worry about the detail later.
True? False? Idealistic?
It's a conundrum alright!
I had a really interesting conversation this week with another uncoupled friend. He too is thinking about the ups and downs of the single life, like how to muster the effort required to meet new people versus the apparent ease of just accepting singleness.
I was once told that I appeared to be someone who wanted a boyfriend not a partner. I think what that person meant was that I wasn't prepared to commit EVERYTHING to a relationship. At that time it probably had more to do with that particular relationship than my state of intention, but in reflection I can see some truth in that.
And whilst I'm not in favour of the FWB idea, let alone the FB one (look it up...), I can see an appeal in the part time relationship - does that means girlfriend/boyfriend? -too. I suspect that the longer one remains single the harder it becomes to want to compromise that independence. And also the harder it becomes to blend two lives - especially if there are children, or different locations, or no major overlap of friends and interests.
I really can't decide which option has the most - or least - appeal. To be coupled, to have a special person to share life with or to be single and get to enjoy the privilege (and I want to frame it like that) of being wholly responsible and accountable to just myself. To know that I might not have to have another ''sunday bloody sunday'' versus having each child free weekend stretching deliciously empty and full of promise ahead of me.
Maybe if i met the "right"person none of this would matter? Possibly not. But I am also realistic enough to know that I should not have to compromise the things that I don't want to compromise, any more than any potential partner should have to.
I was once told that I appeared to be someone who wanted a boyfriend not a partner. I think what that person meant was that I wasn't prepared to commit EVERYTHING to a relationship. At that time it probably had more to do with that particular relationship than my state of intention, but in reflection I can see some truth in that.
And whilst I'm not in favour of the FWB idea, let alone the FB one (look it up...), I can see an appeal in the part time relationship - does that means girlfriend/boyfriend? -too. I suspect that the longer one remains single the harder it becomes to want to compromise that independence. And also the harder it becomes to blend two lives - especially if there are children, or different locations, or no major overlap of friends and interests.
I really can't decide which option has the most - or least - appeal. To be coupled, to have a special person to share life with or to be single and get to enjoy the privilege (and I want to frame it like that) of being wholly responsible and accountable to just myself. To know that I might not have to have another ''sunday bloody sunday'' versus having each child free weekend stretching deliciously empty and full of promise ahead of me.
Maybe if i met the "right"person none of this would matter? Possibly not. But I am also realistic enough to know that I should not have to compromise the things that I don't want to compromise, any more than any potential partner should have to.
I'm just not ready for a relationship
scenario 1:
A lovely friend of mine in his early 50's has recently become uncoupled. It was a newish, but seemingly solid relationship of a few months. They seems well suited, it appeared to be going well. Right up until the day she TEXTED him, post date, to say she just needed 'some time'. She wasn't sure. She had some things to figure out. She wasn't convinced she was actually wanting to commit to a relationship.
Being a good guy, he graciously gave her some time. She came back to him. She TEXTED again. No, it was over. Seriously? She texted a breakup? At 50, don't you think a bit more class might have been in order?
Scenario 2
Gay male friend this time. Meets a nice man. They become friends. It starts to feel like it might go somewhere. He can't decide. He hasn't been single that long from last demise. After some weeks he tells him (in much classier way - email this time...) that no, he is just not able to proceed. He's just not ready for a relationship.
He understands. It was early days. He was still in recovery mode.
Within 5 days he announces he is in a "committed relationship" and is quietly confident of it progressing.
Scenario 3
A woman. Sweet. She meets a sweet, fairly unworldy guy. Both late 30's, not wide-eyed teens. A friendship develops. It half progresses to relationship. and back. and forward. He can't decide. He's just not ready. At last he is. He tells her she's the one for him. 6 weeks later he mentions (via email...sheesh there's a theme here...) that he is going on a date that night. Just thought she should know.
I have run out of fingers, and toes, to count the number of people I know who have been given the i'm so sorry but i'm just not ready for a relationship line.
Come on people. Get honest. Sure the truth hurts. So does rejection. But retain a shred of dignity for you and the person you are lying to. and it is a lie. Because you know what you REALLY mean is:
Sorry but I'm not interested in a relationship with YOU.
And for goodness sake, do it in person will you?
A lovely friend of mine in his early 50's has recently become uncoupled. It was a newish, but seemingly solid relationship of a few months. They seems well suited, it appeared to be going well. Right up until the day she TEXTED him, post date, to say she just needed 'some time'. She wasn't sure. She had some things to figure out. She wasn't convinced she was actually wanting to commit to a relationship.
Being a good guy, he graciously gave her some time. She came back to him. She TEXTED again. No, it was over. Seriously? She texted a breakup? At 50, don't you think a bit more class might have been in order?
Scenario 2
Gay male friend this time. Meets a nice man. They become friends. It starts to feel like it might go somewhere. He can't decide. He hasn't been single that long from last demise. After some weeks he tells him (in much classier way - email this time...) that no, he is just not able to proceed. He's just not ready for a relationship.
He understands. It was early days. He was still in recovery mode.
Within 5 days he announces he is in a "committed relationship" and is quietly confident of it progressing.
Scenario 3
A woman. Sweet. She meets a sweet, fairly unworldy guy. Both late 30's, not wide-eyed teens. A friendship develops. It half progresses to relationship. and back. and forward. He can't decide. He's just not ready. At last he is. He tells her she's the one for him. 6 weeks later he mentions (via email...sheesh there's a theme here...) that he is going on a date that night. Just thought she should know.
I have run out of fingers, and toes, to count the number of people I know who have been given the i'm so sorry but i'm just not ready for a relationship line.
Come on people. Get honest. Sure the truth hurts. So does rejection. But retain a shred of dignity for you and the person you are lying to. and it is a lie. Because you know what you REALLY mean is:
Sorry but I'm not interested in a relationship with YOU.
And for goodness sake, do it in person will you?
friends...but without the benefits
I have had cause recently to have a number of discussions about the merits (or lack thereof) of this FWB phenomena that seems to be sweeping singledom at the moment.
Now I am not able to speak from experience about this but I have to say that I have my doubts about how it can really truly work.
I figure that if someone is your friend, that means you like them and want to spend time with them. If you are interested in a sexual relationship with someone I am assuming that you have to be physically attracted to them. So the combination, surely, is that you have found someone you like, that you want to spend time with, and you are attracted to.
So my question is this...why would someone choose FWB over a real, committed relationship?
I understand that it might have something to do with age and stage in life. Maybe personal circumstances. But surely even in a friendship one makes allowances or compensation for that? Maybe one, or both, is reluctant to commit to something 'serious'' - but surely we should be treating even a friendship with respect and seriousness?
And doesn't the fact that it may now include a sexual connection give it an element of seriousness (or is that just old fashioned me?). Doesn't that kind of skew things and start to involve feelings and emotions outside the bounds of friendship? What happens when the rules change - say one person starts to feel 'more'' that the other? What if the rules weren't defined properly at the start? What exactly are the rules? Where are the benefits!?!
I'm fascinated by this. Are there really truly people out there who have done this and it has worked? Anonymous- or not - responses welcomed!!!
Now I am not able to speak from experience about this but I have to say that I have my doubts about how it can really truly work.
I figure that if someone is your friend, that means you like them and want to spend time with them. If you are interested in a sexual relationship with someone I am assuming that you have to be physically attracted to them. So the combination, surely, is that you have found someone you like, that you want to spend time with, and you are attracted to.
So my question is this...why would someone choose FWB over a real, committed relationship?
I understand that it might have something to do with age and stage in life. Maybe personal circumstances. But surely even in a friendship one makes allowances or compensation for that? Maybe one, or both, is reluctant to commit to something 'serious'' - but surely we should be treating even a friendship with respect and seriousness?
And doesn't the fact that it may now include a sexual connection give it an element of seriousness (or is that just old fashioned me?). Doesn't that kind of skew things and start to involve feelings and emotions outside the bounds of friendship? What happens when the rules change - say one person starts to feel 'more'' that the other? What if the rules weren't defined properly at the start? What exactly are the rules? Where are the benefits!?!
I'm fascinated by this. Are there really truly people out there who have done this and it has worked? Anonymous- or not - responses welcomed!!!
sex and the single girl
Do men and women have a different approach to sexuality?
Why is it that traditionally (cougars notwithstanding) it has been men who have been allowed to acknowledge and seek to satisfy their sexual thoughts? Whereas the girls (except for the ones who are clearly "gagging for it") are expected to not even discuss such things, unless in the company of other single and similarly unsatisfied women.
Maybe it has something to do with the way that women process this stuff. We are, according to the experts, the emotional ones - the ones who mostly can't or won't have sex, outside the confines of a relationship. Which is an conundrum to me. Because clearly these men (assuming they are actually doing it) are having sex with someone - which we can safely assume is the same someone who is having sex with them, outside of the confines of a relationship!
Or is it that this is just another thing that 'nice girls' aren't supposed to talk about?
Now I'm the first to admit that I have no interest in casual sex. In fact the very term strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron. Can something that intimate actually really be casual? Or at a deeper level, SHOULD it be casual?
But that doesn't mean that we supposedly buttoned-up types don't get tempted.
So maybe the answer is that the men are by and large happier to get on with it, and talk about it. Whereas the women - well most of them - take a more calculated approach.
It makes me wonder about communication though - assuming everyone's getting lucky, what are we actually telling each other?
Why is it that traditionally (cougars notwithstanding) it has been men who have been allowed to acknowledge and seek to satisfy their sexual thoughts? Whereas the girls (except for the ones who are clearly "gagging for it") are expected to not even discuss such things, unless in the company of other single and similarly unsatisfied women.
Maybe it has something to do with the way that women process this stuff. We are, according to the experts, the emotional ones - the ones who mostly can't or won't have sex, outside the confines of a relationship. Which is an conundrum to me. Because clearly these men (assuming they are actually doing it) are having sex with someone - which we can safely assume is the same someone who is having sex with them, outside of the confines of a relationship!
Or is it that this is just another thing that 'nice girls' aren't supposed to talk about?
Now I'm the first to admit that I have no interest in casual sex. In fact the very term strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron. Can something that intimate actually really be casual? Or at a deeper level, SHOULD it be casual?
But that doesn't mean that we supposedly buttoned-up types don't get tempted.
So maybe the answer is that the men are by and large happier to get on with it, and talk about it. Whereas the women - well most of them - take a more calculated approach.
It makes me wonder about communication though - assuming everyone's getting lucky, what are we actually telling each other?
The C-word
Over the past few years, I have met an extraordinary group of people, none of whom would have probably ever crossed my path if I was still married.
They have a lot of things in common, although few know each other.
Most are in their early 40s, or there abouts.
Most have recently come out of a long term relationship.
Many have children. Some do not.
Most are articulate, well read, well travelled, balanced human beings.
Most believe that human beings are not destined to be alone, and are therefore open, often enthusiastic, about meeting new people, and hopefully, that one special one.
Most, carry some scars, some deeper than others, made by the other broken relationships and dreams they have had in the past.
Some are healed. Some are not. Some are healing. Some are still breaking.
Sticking with generalisations here, for the most part, the women are excited about the prospect of meeting a new partner, but are terrified of making another mistake. they don't trust their own judgement.
the women know they are a package deal if they have children (dress it up however you like, but if it smells like a rat and looks like a rat....). They know this is scary for the boys. They wish, at some level, it wasn't this way. But also know that it's the truth, and no matter how many nights they manage to organise a childfree outing, a lazy sleep-in or even a weekend away, eventually the two lives are going to collide, and spectacularly.
And, generally, the men are looking at all those gorgeous girls that are 10 years younger than them and deciding that the younger models are where it's at. they don't have kids (and therefore commitments). They don't have kids (and therefore stretchmarks). Oh, and they don't have kids (and therefore a pesky ex).
The men are saying they want to fall in love. But they also know that this could mean sex with the same woman for the rest of their lives, and no one else. They say they like the idea of having a place to call home, but they also know that this might just mean the end of a life they are actually starting to rather enjoy.
Hmm, I think that's called a fear of commitment.
It's a wonder any of us ever get into relationships again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)