So what is it that makes one person secure in a relationship, and another person not secure? Why is it that some people are perfectly fine with the idea of their partners having lunch with, romantic relationships with, or mad passionate sex with another person, while some people would rather be shot multiple times in a drive-by than see that happen?
It’s too easy just to say “Oh, some people are jealous.” That’s a non-answer. Whenever I hear someone say something like “Oh, I could never do that, I’m a jealous person,” it sounds as nonsensical as saying “Oh, I’m a hungry person” or “Oh, I’m a tired person.” Jealousy is an emotional response; to say “Oh, I’m a jealous person” and to let it go at that is to treat it as if it is some fixed, immutable thing we are powerless over, like saying “Oh, I’m a Western European person” or “Oh, I’m a dark-haired person.” In fact, scratch that–many people seem to feel they have more control over the color of their hair than over their emotional lives!
Now, there are certainly plenty of people in the world who do indeed feel unhappy and insecure if their partner spends time with someone else. There are many reasons that someone might feel this way, of course; insecurity, low self-esteem, a feeling of being expendable or interchangeable, a feeling that one’s needs are not important to one’s partner, feelings of being marginalized or trivialized.
Some of these, such as low self-esteem, are internal. Low self-esteem in particular is a real bitch, especially when it comes to relationships; I’ve seen many people cling to their low self-esteem like drowning men cling to a piece of driftwood, refusing to give it up. It’s self-reinforcing, because it creates a sense that you’re not valuable and thare are many people in the world who are better than you are, so you best not let your partner be with any of them, or best make sure you’re in control of the situation. The thought of giving up the low self-esteem is terrifying, because if you give up your low self-esteem, then it might be okay for your partner to spend time with another person–and you don’t want that to happen, because it makes you feel insecure! Hence, you don’t want to give up the low self-esteem, because giving it up means that you may face situations which…trigger your low self-esteem.
Some of these are external. There really are people who shouldn’t be comfortable if their partners express an interest in someone else; there really are people who treat their partners as expendable and interchangeable, and who aren’t concerned with taking care of their partner’s needs. Many “free agents” in the poly community behave in ways that don’t exactly inspire confidence in their lovers; some behave as if they barely recognize the differences between them at all.
Okay, so there’s nothing new in any of that. We all know this already, right? Behave in a way that doesn’t acknowledge the needs of your lover, and your lover may not feel secure in your relationship. Behave with indifference to your lover, and your lover may not feel secure in your relationship. Behave as if your lover is the flavor of the day–“Ooh, you’re so cool, I dig you, I’m so glad we met, I totally lov–oh, look, potato chips!”–and your lover may not feel secure in your relationship. This isn’t really rocket science.
But what happens if you flip that coin over and look at the other side?
There are people in the world–I’ve met more than a few–who have a strong sense of self, a robust sense of security, who are in partnerships with people who are sensitive to their needs and treat them well, yet who still seem plagued by insecurity in their relationships. I’m not talking about people who simply aren’t polyamorous; there are secure people in healthy relationships who are just monogamous, and that’s the end of it. No, I mean people who seem to be secure in themselves and have partners who treat them well, yet seem insecure in their relationships all the same. So what’s the difference?
Conjecture: Putting your partner’s needs first, putting your partner’s happiness before your own, doing everything you do in your relationship for the sake of your partner, can also cause your partner to be insecure.
Reasoning: Now, this doesn’t seem to make intuitive sense at all; if your partner is respectful of your needs and consistently puts your needs ahead of his own, it wouldn’t seem like this should breed insecurity. Just the opposite, in fact; a person in a relationship with someone who has a consistent track record of making his happiness the most important thing should feel secure, right? But bear with me here.
Let’s say Alice and Bob are in a relationship, and Alice consistently puts Bob’s happiness ahead of her own. Alice genuinely wants to make Bob happy; in fact, this is her first priority in all matters great and small. Alice has always done everything she can to make Bob’s needs her first concern. Could you reasonably expect Bob to feel secure with Alice?
I think the answer is “no.” Every human being does have needs; a romantic relationship where one person’s needs are important and another’s are not isn’t sustainable, even if it’s the choice of the person whose needs are being neglected.
But it gets worse. If Alice has never made her needs or her happiness a priority, and has never stood up for the things she wants, then it’s entirely possible that Bob doesn’t understand her needs, and because of that has no idea how to make her happy. Alice’s self-sacrifice backfires, because by not standing up for her needs, she has denied Bob the opportunity to meet them. Can Bob make Alice happy in their relationship? Bob has absolutely no way to know; he has no handle on what Alice needs…and indeed Alice herself may not have a handle on her needs! When the day comes that the relationship becomes unsustainable, when Alice must start considering her own happiness…what then? Bob doesn’t have the tools to make Alice happy; if some situation comes along which DOES make Alice happy–even if it’s a situation Alice herself could not have foreseen or anticipated–the Bob may very well lose Alice, and the poor guy never had a chance.
The dangers of putting your own needs ahead of everyone else’s are pretty obvious, really. Being a selfish prick isn’t a good relationship strategy, and I think most reasonably people can easily see why.
But the reverse–putting your partner’s needs ahead of your own–is a dangerous game as well. There comes a point where you must stand up for your own happiness, and defend the things you need and want; if you do not, your partner may be left with no idea what those things are, and no idea how to make you happy.
Were I in a relationship with someone I did not know how to make happy, I do not believe it would be possible for me to be secure in that relationship–even if my lover did everything in the world for me. Reciprocity in a relationship is more than just fair; it’s the very thing that gives the people involved the tools they need to make one another happy. It’s very important for me that my lover stand up for her happiness, and be able to assert herself and ask for what she wants. If I know what she wants, I may or may not be able to provide it–but if I don’t know what she wants, I don’t have the most basic tools I need to make her happy, and if I cannot make her happy, I can never really trust that she will stay.
i completely agree. even short of worries about leaving, i’d like my partner to articulate her desires, since i’d like her to be happy… i usually find that misplaced self-effacement leads to problems sooner, rather than later.
i completely agree. even short of worries about leaving, i’d like my partner to articulate her desires, since i’d like her to be happy… i usually find that misplaced self-effacement leads to problems sooner, rather than later.
Eep
Eep
True to form, I agree with 90% of what you’re saying. 🙂 However,
“I’ve seen many people cling to their low self-esteem like drowning men cling to a piece of driftwood, refusing to give it up.“
makes no sense to me. I have a fair amount of experience with low self-esteem in relationships, both my own and in those with whom I’m involved, and it’s never been something which has been chosen, either consciously or unconsciously. In fact, I’ve seen it recognized for what it is and struggled against on a daily basis, and can assure you that it isn’t a switch which can be turned off or even a crutch which can be dropped if only the person really wants to. You describe it as a self-reinforcing downward spiral, and in my observation that’s an oversimplification.
Other than that I think you’re spot on as usual. Go you! 🙂
If I was drowning, and the only thing I thought could save me was a piece of driftwood – I don’t think it would be very easy to give that up either.. I don’t think the analogy really trivializes or oversimplifies how complicated low self esteem is or how difficult it is to turn it. You could look at the driftwood as a metaphor for your personality. Low self esteem is usually so tightly wound around parts of our personalities that the only way to change it is to actually kill parts of ourselves and rebuild.
The flaw that I see in the analogy is that driftwood would provide comfort and potentially serves a functional purpose. Insecurity would be more like the anchor tied to your leg, in that it does neither of the above and doesn’t even provide the appearance of being beneficial on any level.
To my knowledge, I’ve never met anyone (myself included) who experiences insecurity and sees it as a positive in any way, or in any way seeks to maintain or foster it.
Just my $.02.
The analogy here is to the fact that the drowning man clings tightly to the driftwood, unwilling to let it go, and often someone who is insecure or has poor self-esteem clings tightly to those feelings, seeing nothing positive in them but still unwilling to let them go.
As a thought experiment, consider a person who is insecure and has a fear reaction whenever he thinks about his lover being with someone else. Why? Perhaps he has a fear of loss, or a fear of abandonment, or the sense that he will no longer be special…whatever.
When that person imagines what his life would look like without his insecurity, he thinks of his lover being with someone else. The instant he visualizes that, he has a fear response. So even though he may think intellectually “If I am not insecure, I won’t be disturbed or upset by it,” that doesn’t change the fact that when he imagines giving up his insecurity, his very first emotional reaction–that visceral gut response, before logic or reason–is a fear response.
The drowning man hangs on to the driftwood because he is afraid to let go; and sometimes, an insecure person hangs on to the insecurity because he is afraid to let it go. He’s not consciously thinking “This insecurity is good, and I like being this way, so I think I’ll stay this way”–it’s not that simple. He may sincerely want to let it go, but there’s still that twinge of fear when he thinks about doing it.
It can manifest itself in many different ways. I’ve seen people rehearse their reasons for being insecure, persuading themselves that they really are bad and they don’t deserve to feel secure and self-assured. I’ve known people who tell themselves “Well, I’ll change my insecurity tomorrow. I’ll get over it later–not right now, but at some point in the future.” (My ex was like this; she was always telling herself “I’ll be secure when I lose weight” or “I’ll be secure after the surgery.”) It’s not about someone saying “Oh, I like being insecure, I think I’ll stay this way”–it’s about the insecurity itself subverting attempts to get rid of it, it’s about the emotional response protecting itself.
Low self-esteem can be like a straitjacket. From the outside, everyone can see that you’re trapped inside it and can’t function normally, but from the inside, it feels like a very comfortable security blanket. And yes, it does everything it can to maintain control over you and keep you from getting better, just like any other sickness.
I’m sorry, gotta chime in against this one.
Your and Fatesgirl’s analogy of clung driftwood as a low self-esteem seems to me flawed. I see all low self-esteem (LSE?) as what’s left of any Esteem after Trauma, just as a scar or scab or missing limb shows physical damage. LSE is not something to which people desparately cling for salvation. Rather, LSE is the absence of esteem. Like the boater in the horrible accident, the driftwood may exhibit itself through behaviors that reveal the absence or diminishment of Esteem — distrust of intimacy, an unwillingness to commit lest one find oneself again betrayed, paranoia, uncertainty. Those bereft of confidence in actions that remind them of the accident, the trauma, must heal before they can abandon their driftwood/insecurities.
And where is the self-image in the boating analogy? It sank with the boat.
Also, the analogy is somewhat flawed in application. A six-foot boater can drown in waters under six feet in depth, given enough time to fall asleep and slip beneath the waves; one either survives the wreck or one does not. This seems to me too polar an analogy; when it comes to self-esteem, there exist an infinite number of strata in the emotional continuum one may inhabit, from the almost complete absence of self-worth to those skittish about only one activity (boating? polyamory? felching?) in their daily lives and thus unwilling to give it yet another try.
I’d like to suggest another analogy, one that maintains the imagery of buoyancy without the absolute polarity of death or survival; ballooning. Those with a strong sense of self-worth and full of confidence are, indeed, buoyant, their heads well above the clouds. Those with trauma have fallen, but not crashed. Until the hot-air bladder of their person has healed and refilled, they may indeed be better off avoiding high-stakes shenanigans, choosing instead to hover just above the trees. The higher you go, the farther you have to fall, and the more sudden the stop.
Let me give an example of trauma that had to heal. A friend’s husband had trouble receiving blowjobs from his wife, who was more than willing to give them. Turns out he had a Psycho Bitch from Hell girlfriend who would blow him, and then with an acid disposition I find it hard to imagine anyone else achieving, tell him that he “enjoyed it too much.” (you know who you are, Sandy) As if such a thing were possible!
My friend had to pointedly remind him that he could enjoy her head as much as he possibly could, and had to constantly positively reinforce this message by sucking him dry as much as possible and, after each hoovering, cuddle and say sweet things. He finally got over the PSoH’s traumatic conditioning, but recovery and his wife’s therapy took a lot out of him. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I do agree that many seem to cling to behaviors indicative of trauma long after it seems they should; might it be that they have not just not allowed themselves to heal, but that the trauma was severe enough that they need help healing? Given the number of people that have benefitted from therapy both official and just from very good friends and lovers, I suspect that might just be. It might very well be also that, unseen by anyone but themselves, they are deflated by a two-faced person in their lives, a secret abuser that relishes the other’s lack of confidence. Think Sybil’s mom, or Joan Crawford and her daughter.
I am a bit torn, because I’ve seen people that should Just Fucking Get Over It; but I also wish anyone luck and hope getting the balloon reinflated. I’ve been there, the skimming the powerlines getting ever closer, and it sucks. It is indeed that sinking feeling.
I can completely see that analogy. However, in the case of my own low self esteem, the idea of the driftwood after the rescue is more accurate. Low self esteem was a tool that is no longer useful to me, and I ought to toss it away, but it’s difficult because I often find myself in similiar situations where in the past I would have needed it but now I no longer do.
I think that low self esteem manifests itself differently for each person suffering from it and depending on what caused it in the first place.
Yeah, the totally subjective nature of outward behavior/inward motivation completely skews meaningful analysis. I too wandered around in a fog of self-loathing until I willed myself to heal — or was I ready to heal only when I was able to make the decision to do so? Hard to say. Very chicken and egg.
hmm.. I think insecurity can be beneficial – especially in situations where you aren’t secure! Insecure behaviors usually develop for a reason. I’ve found for myself that the only way I’ve been able to fight out of insecurity and low self esteem is to first recognize that some part of me believes that these thoughts serve a purpose (ie. if I don’t feel chronically ashamed of myself, then i’ll make a fool of myself and everyone will laugh at me and then shun me). I developed these tools as a child, when I didn’t have the wisdom or power to take another path.. and some of those tendencies are still with me, doing their best to keep that 6 year old safe.
I agree. It would be a more accurate analogy (albeit longer) if low self-esteem were likened to the driftwood after the drowning man was saved.
Imagine this instead:
This man is in a horrible boating accident and grabs onto a piece of driftwood, clinging to it to save himself. The driftwood is an poor specimen to be used as a life preserver, but it’s just enough to save the man from actually drowning until the man is rescued. The experience was so horrible that the man begins carrying the piece of drftwood about with him just in case he ever needs to use it again. It doesn’t matter that he’s not on a boat or that he doesn’t go near pools of water any more, still he carries that driftwood about with him, in the shower, to work, in the car, when he goes to bed. He can’t seem to let go of the tool that once saved him, even when it starts getting in the way of his relationships and prevents him from getting promotions and moving up in the world. Even though people look at him and go – jeez, there’s just something wrong there – still he carries that bit of driftwood about with him.
Because really, that’s what low self esteem is. A past tool generated from a specific need that is now no longer useful, is a problem, and is a hinderance. The problem is that once you’ve protected yourself with something for a long time, it’s hard to give it up, even when you know that it’s causing problems. In fact, even if you can realize this, and you can either chip away at the low self-esteem or set it aside for short periods of time, you’ll find yourself reverting back to it periodically simply from habit, or because you’re encountering a similar situation to the original.
So, the man might learn that he can set aside the driftwood at work which is nowhere near the water, but if he happens to go out onto a pier or dockside restaurant for a social situation, he might pick that driftwood up for that instance because he’s going to be near a body of water again. And if he’s not careful, he might not set it aside again after that because he’s comfortable carrying it.
It’s not that the person is making a conscious effort to “see” their insecurity in a positive light. They use the insecurity to stick with the mental vision of who and what they are.
“I’m not (insert adjective here) enough.” This kind of phrase is indicative of a way of thinking. The person with the low self esteem – heck any trait that is considered “bad” for you that you have decided is part of who you are and how you are defined becomes key to your own picture of yourself. You get so hung up on the “well, I just am this way,” that you don’t see that you are whatever way you chose to be and make effort to be.
If I decide I’m short-tempered, and when I fly off the handle I say “well, I’ve always been short tempered, heck my whole family is,” I’ve reinforced that way of being. When I give myself permission and encouragement to not be short tempered, I can change.
I don’t think folks necessarily realize what they’re doing when they foster and maintain insecurity. In self-reflection that people generally avoid in life, lies an escape from “I’m just this way.”
You’re right. I agree. In my ‘longer’ driftwood analogy above, I neglected to mention that the person may begin to see the driftwood as a part of himself or herself because it once was useful and has been around so long. In fact, the person may never even realize that it’s something that need to be changed because it may have been picked up so early that it’s ‘always’ been there.
I might throw a comment in on this one myself.
I think the points people have raised are valid. There’s another element to it though. To stretch the metaphor much further, the drowning man has kept paddling for weeks, he’s collected up bits of driftwood hoping to keep afloat. They are not proving useful, but in the time bobbing there, he’s shaped them into all sorts of interesting things. One is shaped for waving at boats, another is just the right shape for getting aboard (or so he thinks) and another one would be really useful to the captain if the right boat came by. Some of them at least float on their own, but others are actually weighing him down, but they look so useful, and you never know which one will be the useful one.
The problem is to abandon the driftwood and swim for the shore is a bold, scary maneuver.
Now myself, I’ve suffered (and at times do suffer) low self-esteem. But I’ve also watched people with (as it seemed to me) too much self esteem. Over the years I’ve crafted my nervousness-es into (over?)elaborate courtesy, detailed awareness of others needs etc. Now to abandon the low self-esteem I feel I’d have to drop the features I’ve built from it.
Don’t get me wrong. I know I don’t have to lose these traits to gain self-esteem, but the low self-esteem part says hang on tight. You might lose them.
I’ve been fortunate in that other things have come along in my life that boosted my sense of self-worth, but I still struggle to put my needs first ever.
Still well written Tacit (and all responders also).
I must have a chat with my wife sometime soon. 🙂
True to form, I agree with 90% of what you’re saying. 🙂 However,
“I’ve seen many people cling to their low self-esteem like drowning men cling to a piece of driftwood, refusing to give it up.“
makes no sense to me. I have a fair amount of experience with low self-esteem in relationships, both my own and in those with whom I’m involved, and it’s never been something which has been chosen, either consciously or unconsciously. In fact, I’ve seen it recognized for what it is and struggled against on a daily basis, and can assure you that it isn’t a switch which can be turned off or even a crutch which can be dropped if only the person really wants to. You describe it as a self-reinforcing downward spiral, and in my observation that’s an oversimplification.
Other than that I think you’re spot on as usual. Go you! 🙂
If I was drowning, and the only thing I thought could save me was a piece of driftwood – I don’t think it would be very easy to give that up either.. I don’t think the analogy really trivializes or oversimplifies how complicated low self esteem is or how difficult it is to turn it. You could look at the driftwood as a metaphor for your personality. Low self esteem is usually so tightly wound around parts of our personalities that the only way to change it is to actually kill parts of ourselves and rebuild.
Insecurity in a relationship comes primarely from low self esteem and personal complexes; but I think they are deterrents of further involvement rather than proponents of retaliation. For example, if you are insecure about your physical appearance, you will avoid sexual activity at all costs and will feel very uncomfortable when you see things leading to the exposition of your weakness.
Whether you get jealous when your spouse is with another person is of no debate. Of course you will, but the desire for more control is independent of insecurity and varies with personality.
Whether you get jealous when your spouse is with another person is of no debate. Of course you will, but the desire for more control is independent of insecurity and varies with personality.
I’m not sure I follow this part–do you mean you believe that jealousy is an inevitable response when your spouse is with another person?
I’ve been here too
. . . do you mean you believe that jealousy is an inevitable response when your spouse is with another person?
For those that have the jealous response, jealousy is not a rational, reasoned, optional response. It simply Is. Furthermore, it exists in all cultures on all continents. It Is, and will not merely be denied out of existence for those that wish such an absence. If one has it, one may be stuck with it.
On the other hand, like all emotions and abilities in the human catalog, jealous behaviors vary in intensity from person to person, and can fluctuate in intensity as one ages, so it may not be around forever, or may return/appear when you least need or expect it.
Harlan Ellison once pointed out that humans have the most advanced neocortex in the animal kingdom, giving them unmatched abilities in reasoning and communication; but the part of the brain that regulates emotional response (cerebellum?) is as complex as an orangutang’s. Therefore, we use our big brain logic to rationalize the actions our primitive brain emotions prompted us to undertake.
I have very close associations with folks in long-term polyamory (which I would be happy to discuss off-blog). These associations have led me to believe strongly that only a select few have control over the jealous thing — or are not controlled by it — enough to attempt multiple loves without disaster and distraction.
Re: I’ve been here too
“For those that have the jealous response, jealousy is not a rational, reasoned, optional response. It simply Is. Furthermore, it exists in all cultures on all continents. It Is, and will not merely be denied out of existence for those that wish such an absence. If one has it, one may be stuck with it.”
Jealousy is a part of the human emotional condition, no doubt about it. Yet so are anger, fear, sadness, and so on, yet you will often hear people say “Oh, i’m a jealous person” but not so often hear people say “Oh, I’m an angry person.”
Like all emotional responses, jealousy does not exist in a vacuum. It’s a response to something–but unlike most other emotions, jealousy is often a composite emotion, an emotional response built from other emotions (such as insecurity and fear of loss).
What’s interesting about jealousy is that vey often, people believe that it is an inevitable emotional response we have no power whatsoever over. We live in a society that tells us when we should be jealous and under what circumstances, and tells us that jealousy is the only appropriate response to certain things…is it any wonder that so many people spend so much of their time feeling jealous? Yet for all that, jealousy is really not that difficult to get rid of.
You’re right that it can’t be wished away. People often try to suppress jealousy by telling themselves that they shouldn’t feel it, and by squashing it–which, as with any emotional response, rarely works. An emotional response can’t just be squashed; thousands of years later, the Catholics still haven’t learned that squashing an emotion like sexual attraction simply causes it to leak out in other, unexpected ways.
But jealousy can be understood. It is not an inevitable response to, say, seeing your partner kiss someone else. It’s built on something–often insecurity, often low self-esteem, often fear of loss, whatever. Address that thing it is built on–fix the insecurity, address the fear of loss–and you’ll find that there’s no need to suppress the jealousy; it simply goes away on its own. (The same is true for other emotional responses as well; address the thing making you angry and the anger goes away.)
It’s more comfortable, though, to build a system that permits you to avoid the things which may trigger your fear of loss or insecurity or whatever, to buld an entire mechanism designed to keep you from confronting these things. This is one way to address jealousy, but it’s a bit like dealing with a phobia by building a life that never brings you into contact with the thing you’re afraid of–rather than making the jealousy or the phobia go away, all you’ve done is give in to them to such an extent that you build your life around them. Which is, I think, unfortunate.
We live in a world that teaches us to be disempowered in the face of jealousy, and furthermore, which tells us we’re weird if we do NOT feel jealous. It’s not any surprise at all that most people handle their jealousy poorly.
Re: I’ve been here too
“We live in a world that teaches us to be disempowered in the face of jealousy, and furthermore, which tells us we’re weird if we do NOT feel jealous. It’s not any surprise at all that most people handle their jealousy poorly.”
Hmmm. . . .
Thinking back to the more “free and liberated” 60s and 70s, and observing the young still in the bloom of horniness and the sexual revolution, I can remember when it was not cool to feel jealous. Back then, jealousy was regarded by those just waiting for the revolution or whatever as a Western culture hang-up, a way of enslaving women in a patriarchal society.
Still, people got jealous.
Since I read your post, I’ve been thinking a lot not just about jealousy in particular, but about emotion in general. I realize I know people who simply do not display certain emotions. Dave, for example, a friend since childhood, seems born without the capacity to mourn the loss of a person. He still feels weird about his mother’s death, because he never felt badly about it. He didn’t want her dead, but he can’t understand why he never regarded it as a big deal. He didn’t tell anyone for almost a year simply because he regarded it so lightly. Also, he’s the guy that’s impossible to track down, because he never feels the absence of friends, and therefore makes no effort to keep in touch. He’s great when you do see him, and acts as if you just saw him yesterday, which leads me to believe that he sees everyone in the same light. If you are there, hooray; if not, no big.
I myself have no “God shaped hole” as the Christers call it, no aching, longing, need to surrender to any higher power. Even when I putatively held a belief in the standard deity, I felt no void filled, and soon questioned why I had succumbed to the pressure to believe. Others (Bob Dylan comes to mind) just have to believe. They don’t know what to worship, but worship they must. Think also of all the folks who refuse to subscribe to any organized religion, but still hold “creative visualization” sessions — prayer without an addressee. They also can’t not believe in something.
On an extreme side, think of sociopaths, those with the complete inability to feel remorse for their actions. Rapists, serial killers, those with issues of insecurity and desire for control that warps their actions in ugly and violent ways.
So, you might very well be correct, that jealousy is symptomatic of other states of well-being; but by that logic the ability to feel remorse, or the degree one feels loss, might also be symptomatic. I’m not so sure. There are those that feel physical pain intensely, and those that have to be checked regularly for injuries because they were born without the ability to feel any pain. On jealousy, I’m leaning toward an opinion that puts emotional responses closer to physical responses.
Can these states change? Absolutely. I myself remember vividly the devastation of earlier betrayals, and the relative inconvenience of those that came later in life. I laugh at it, the “callousness” I seem to have developed; but maybe it is maturity and a growing sense of well-being and independance.
Re: I’ve been here too
“Thinking back to the more “free and liberated” 60s and 70s, and observing the young still in the bloom of horniness and the sexual revolution, I can remember when it was not cool to feel jealous. Back then, jealousy was regarded by those just waiting for the revolution or whatever as a Western culture hang-up, a way of enslaving women in a patriarchal society.
Still, people got jealous.”
Yep. Of course they did.
Jealousy is not an immutable fact of nature; it is possible for a person not to be jealous. However, you do not defeat jealousy simply by trying to squash it; you defeat it by listening to what it is saying, examining what lies beneath it, and addressing those things.
Believing it’s a “Western cultural hang-up” is silly, and it doesn’t qualify as “addressing the roots of the feeling.” The roots of the feeling are much more compex than that; and if you don’t address it by the roots, you’re not going to get rid of it. The 60s approach to jealousy is about as effective as faith healing; make-believe doesn’t really cut it as an approach to emotional OR physical ills. 🙂
“On an extreme side, think of sociopaths, those with the complete inability to feel remorse for their actions. Rapists, serial killers, those with issues of insecurity and desire for control that warps their actions in ugly and violent ways.”
I don’t know how useful it is to consider a true sociopath when trying to understand the normal spectrum of human emotional responses; a true sociopath has a brain which is chemically and physiologically different from that of a non-sociopath. Sociopathy seems linked to extreme abuse during a certain critical period of childhood while the brain is still developing, and is also linked to the presence of a promoter gene which is activated by long-term exposure to stress hormones during that period of time–absent either the abuse or the gene, both of which must be present, you don’t end up with a sociopath.
It’s true that different people have a different emotional experience. What I believe, though, is that this emotional experience is not fixed and immutable. Certain people may, for whatever reason, be more susceptible to a particular emotion, or experience it more easily–but that does not mean these people are a slave to it. They can choose to change themselves and their view of the world such that that emotion no longer rules them, if they want; it’s just that the choice to do so is easier for some people than for others.
What happens with many–perhaps most–people is that they allow their emotional responses to control them, making decisions based on their emotions (or, in the case of responses such as fear and jealousy, making decisions to avoid those things they associate with the emotion), all without ever questioning those emotions, trying to understand them, or trying to address them.
Re: I’ve been here too
First of all, I’d like to sincerely thank you for taking time on this topic. For some reason it fascinates me, and obviously you have given it copious and constructive thought.
“What happens with many–perhaps most–people is that they allow their emotional responses to control them, making decisions based on their emotions (or, in the case of responses such as fear and jealousy, making decisions to avoid those things they associate with the emotion), all without ever questioning those emotions, trying to understand them, or trying to address them.”
Not to sound flippant, I am reminded of a Letterman joke he told on the Tonight Show (with Carson), about guys that can do anything, and how aggravating they can seem to regular folk: “You’re serious?” the guy says, “You bought one of those? You can save a bunch of money building your own refridgerator.”
The joke, of course, is that not everyone can — or even should — build something complex and potentially dangerous. The same can be said for people trying to deal with complex emotional issues.
Should people conquer all their fears? If they find them debilitating, certainly. But fear is also constructive, leading people away from the edges of crumbling cliffs and poisenous creatures. One should work toward ridding one’s self of irrational fears, such as of bathrooms and the color pink, and work toward remembering and dealing with the unpleasantness Daddy did in the pink bathroom when one was young (true, unfortunate story of a friend’s friend). But Fanged Snakes? Healthy fears are not oxymorons.
Back to jealousy. I’ve met people who swing, others who flinch when their partner so much as glances at another. I have seen the gamut, and suppose I will see much, much more in the future. I have felt jealousy, debilitating to mild, and felt more ominously sometimes the conspicuous lack thereof. I try to remain in tune with my feelings, and to trace like tangled schematics the origins of responses before it becomes necessary to hire a professional (so far so good, knock wood).
I guess I accept that I have a Jealous Response. When I examine my feelings, I try to deduce what causes the Response, not that I have one; I do not, however, see the Response as the culprit to my discord. I see it as a symptom.
And the discord can be shockingly disruptive, so I guess I hold a strange fascination for those that feel none.
Again, not to sound flippant, I am genuinely curious: Have you always been free of such emotional discordia, or was there specific introspection and revelation that finally calmed the beast?
Tell me, Sir, how did you build your refridgerator?
Re: I’ve been here too
Now you’ve gone and done it!
Insecurity in a relationship comes primarely from low self esteem and personal complexes; but I think they are deterrents of further involvement rather than proponents of retaliation. For example, if you are insecure about your physical appearance, you will avoid sexual activity at all costs and will feel very uncomfortable when you see things leading to the exposition of your weakness.
Whether you get jealous when your spouse is with another person is of no debate. Of course you will, but the desire for more control is independent of insecurity and varies with personality.
The flaw that I see in the analogy is that driftwood would provide comfort and potentially serves a functional purpose. Insecurity would be more like the anchor tied to your leg, in that it does neither of the above and doesn’t even provide the appearance of being beneficial on any level.
To my knowledge, I’ve never met anyone (myself included) who experiences insecurity and sees it as a positive in any way, or in any way seeks to maintain or foster it.
Just my $.02.
Oh. My. Ghod.
Shit.
That hurt, but it hit the spot. Thank you, sir. May I have another?
Oh. My. Ghod.
Shit.
That hurt, but it hit the spot. Thank you, sir. May I have another?
I have a degree in Anth, may as well share…
Note, I am quoting directly from Wikipedia, instead of paraphrasing or using my own words.
Reciprocity & Altruism came to mind after reading this…
In cultural anthropology, reciprocity is a way of defining people’s informal trading of goods and labor; that is, people’s informal economic systems. It is the basis of most non-market economies. Since virtually all humans live in some kind of society and have at least a few possessions, reciprocity is common to every culture. Anthropologists have identified three types.
Generalized reciprocity is the same as virtually uninhibited sharing or giving. It occurs when one person shares goods or labor with another person without expecting anything in return. What makes this interaction “reciprocal” is the sense of satisfaction the giver feels, and the social closeness that the gift fosters. In industrial society this occurs mainly between parents and children, or within married couples. In other cultures generalized reciprocity can occur within entire clans or large kin groups. Between people who engage in generalized reciprocity, there is a maximum amount of trust and a minimum amount of social distance.
Balanced reciprocity occurs when someone gives to someone else, expecting a fair and tangible return at some undefined future date. It is a very informal system of exchange. The expectation that the giver will be repaid is based on trust and social consequences; that is, a “mooch” who accepts gifts and favors without ever giving himself will find it harder and harder to obtain those favors. In industrial societies this can be found among relatives, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Balanced reciprocity involves a moderate amount of trust and social distance.
Negative reciprocity is what economists call barter. A person gives goods or labor and expects to be repaid immediately with some other goods or labor of the same value. This was the basis of all economies before the invention of money. Negative reciprocity can involve a minimum amount of trust and a maximum social distance; indeed, it can take place among strangers.
These three kinds of reciprocity are the most basic forms of economic exchange; more complex exchange systems include redistribution and the market.
Another form of reciprocity is moral reciprocity. Moral reciprocity refers to the general tendency of humans (and, some argue, other animals) to reciprocate both assistance and harm in relation to the subjective interpretation of that assistance or harm as moral or immoral. For example, neoclassical economics holds that rational individuals will only engage in actions that maximize their material gains. Researchers believe that moral reciprocity may be the reason why many individuals are willing to pay a price considered to be irrationally large (within the framework of neoclassical economics) to punish others they believe have acted immorally.
Also, something of potential interest would be Altruism. Some people have argued that true altruism does not exist.
Altruism can refer to:
being helpful to other people with little or no interest in being rewarded for one’s efforts (the colloquial definition). This is distinct from merely helping others.
actions that benefit others with a net detrimental or neutral effect on the actor, regardless of the actor’s own psychology, motivation, or the cause of her actions. This type of altruistic behavior is referred to in ecology as Commensalism.
an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help others, if necessary to the exclusion of one’s own interest or benefit. One who holds such a doctrine is known as an “altruist.”
Re: I have a degree in Anth, may as well share…
“Reciprocity” here means something like “balanced reciprocity,” in the sense that a relationship works best when all the people involved work together to build something that meets everyone’s needs and serves everyone’s happiness. Healthy relationships need to work for everybody; if one person consistently defers his happiness for the sake of another, the relationship is unsustainable.
Re: I have a degree in Anth, may as well share…
Sure, but a person can defer his happiness for the sake of another for a short period of time, and sometime in the future have it work out for the best.
Alice puts aside her needs for Bob because Bob needs something right now, but later on, when Alice needs, Bob puts aside his needs to help her out. As long as the couple is communicating about their problems and their needs, it will work out.
For a more personal example, I have Rheumatoid Arthritis and is constantly doing things for me because I need him to, often putting aside his needs or wants to do so. None of them are big things, but he does a lot of small things on a day to day basis for me. When the pain and discomfort that I’m suffering this week (or originally for 9 months) is allieviated, I can go back to taking care of him. In addition, when he needs me, I will help him out, even if that’s a long time in the future.
Often for short term problems, partners will put aside their needs until the larger problem is addressed before going back to the normal life of a more ‘equal’ exchange.
Re: I have a degree in Anth, may as well share…
Good point, and good examples.
I’d go so far as to say that, in some circumstances, making long term or even permanent sacrifices is not necessarily a bad thing or at all unhealthy.
Example: I will never in my life get to experience skydiving.‘s concerns about my personal safety lead her to forbid me from doing so. I’d like to try skydiving, and I think that the risk is manageable, but I’m completely okay with her demand. I don’t see it as unreasonable or in any way unhealthy, and it’s a sacrifice I’m happy to make in order to assuage her fears. It isn’t a problem which needs to be fixed, and it isn’t something that is going to have a negative impact on our relationship- either in the short term or long term. The benefits I get from my relationship with her (whether derived from sacrifices on ‘s part or not) enormously outweigh any perceived cost- even if it is a permanent situation.
Obviously this is a mild example, but I can see this holding true for factors of much greater significance, and with much greater impact on our day-to-day lives, without resulting in any harm to or dissatisfaction with the relationship.
Re: I have a degree in Anth, may as well share…
“I’d go so far as to say that, in some circumstances, making long term or even permanent sacrifices is not necessarily a bad thing or at all unhealthy.”
No, not at all. This can be part of the mutual give-and-take that’s part of a healthy relationship.
What I’m referring to is more specific; relationships where one person’s happiness always
I have a degree in Anth, may as well share…
Note, I am quoting directly from Wikipedia, instead of paraphrasing or using my own words.
Reciprocity & Altruism came to mind after reading this…
In cultural anthropology, reciprocity is a way of defining people’s informal trading of goods and labor; that is, people’s informal economic systems. It is the basis of most non-market economies. Since virtually all humans live in some kind of society and have at least a few possessions, reciprocity is common to every culture. Anthropologists have identified three types.
Generalized reciprocity is the same as virtually uninhibited sharing or giving. It occurs when one person shares goods or labor with another person without expecting anything in return. What makes this interaction “reciprocal” is the sense of satisfaction the giver feels, and the social closeness that the gift fosters. In industrial society this occurs mainly between parents and children, or within married couples. In other cultures generalized reciprocity can occur within entire clans or large kin groups. Between people who engage in generalized reciprocity, there is a maximum amount of trust and a minimum amount of social distance.
Balanced reciprocity occurs when someone gives to someone else, expecting a fair and tangible return at some undefined future date. It is a very informal system of exchange. The expectation that the giver will be repaid is based on trust and social consequences; that is, a “mooch” who accepts gifts and favors without ever giving himself will find it harder and harder to obtain those favors. In industrial societies this can be found among relatives, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Balanced reciprocity involves a moderate amount of trust and social distance.
Negative reciprocity is what economists call barter. A person gives goods or labor and expects to be repaid immediately with some other goods or labor of the same value. This was the basis of all economies before the invention of money. Negative reciprocity can involve a minimum amount of trust and a maximum social distance; indeed, it can take place among strangers.
These three kinds of reciprocity are the most basic forms of economic exchange; more complex exchange systems include redistribution and the market.
Another form of reciprocity is moral reciprocity. Moral reciprocity refers to the general tendency of humans (and, some argue, other animals) to reciprocate both assistance and harm in relation to the subjective interpretation of that assistance or harm as moral or immoral. For example, neoclassical economics holds that rational individuals will only engage in actions that maximize their material gains. Researchers believe that moral reciprocity may be the reason why many individuals are willing to pay a price considered to be irrationally large (within the framework of neoclassical economics) to punish others they believe have acted immorally.
Also, something of potential interest would be Altruism. Some people have argued that true altruism does not exist.
Altruism can refer to:
being helpful to other people with little or no interest in being rewarded for one’s efforts (the colloquial definition). This is distinct from merely helping others.
actions that benefit others with a net detrimental or neutral effect on the actor, regardless of the actor’s own psychology, motivation, or the cause of her actions. This type of altruistic behavior is referred to in ecology as Commensalism.
an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help others, if necessary to the exclusion of one’s own interest or benefit. One who holds such a doctrine is known as an “altruist.”
May I?
This rings very true for something I’m going through right now and I’d like to link it to my relationships filter. May I? I’ve just gone through a breakup because of not having needs met and this has given me some insight.
Re: May I?
Certainly!
May I?
This rings very true for something I’m going through right now and I’d like to link it to my relationships filter. May I? I’ve just gone through a breakup because of not having needs met and this has given me some insight.
Re: May I?
Certainly!
Re: I have a degree in Anth, may as well share…
“Reciprocity” here means something like “balanced reciprocity,” in the sense that a relationship works best when all the people involved work together to build something that meets everyone’s needs and serves everyone’s happiness. Healthy relationships need to work for everybody; if one person consistently defers his happiness for the sake of another, the relationship is unsustainable.
The analogy here is to the fact that the drowning man clings tightly to the driftwood, unwilling to let it go, and often someone who is insecure or has poor self-esteem clings tightly to those feelings, seeing nothing positive in them but still unwilling to let them go.
As a thought experiment, consider a person who is insecure and has a fear reaction whenever he thinks about his lover being with someone else. Why? Perhaps he has a fear of loss, or a fear of abandonment, or the sense that he will no longer be special…whatever.
When that person imagines what his life would look like without his insecurity, he thinks of his lover being with someone else. The instant he visualizes that, he has a fear response. So even though he may think intellectually “If I am not insecure, I won’t be disturbed or upset by it,” that doesn’t change the fact that when he imagines giving up his insecurity, his very first emotional reaction–that visceral gut response, before logic or reason–is a fear response.
The drowning man hangs on to the driftwood because he is afraid to let go; and sometimes, an insecure person hangs on to the insecurity because he is afraid to let it go. He’s not consciously thinking “This insecurity is good, and I like being this way, so I think I’ll stay this way”–it’s not that simple. He may sincerely want to let it go, but there’s still that twinge of fear when he thinks about doing it.
It can manifest itself in many different ways. I’ve seen people rehearse their reasons for being insecure, persuading themselves that they really are bad and they don’t deserve to feel secure and self-assured. I’ve known people who tell themselves “Well, I’ll change my insecurity tomorrow. I’ll get over it later–not right now, but at some point in the future.” (My ex was like this; she was always telling herself “I’ll be secure when I lose weight” or “I’ll be secure after the surgery.”) It’s not about someone saying “Oh, I like being insecure, I think I’ll stay this way”–it’s about the insecurity itself subverting attempts to get rid of it, it’s about the emotional response protecting itself.
hmm.. I think insecurity can be beneficial – especially in situations where you aren’t secure! Insecure behaviors usually develop for a reason. I’ve found for myself that the only way I’ve been able to fight out of insecurity and low self esteem is to first recognize that some part of me believes that these thoughts serve a purpose (ie. if I don’t feel chronically ashamed of myself, then i’ll make a fool of myself and everyone will laugh at me and then shun me). I developed these tools as a child, when I didn’t have the wisdom or power to take another path.. and some of those tendencies are still with me, doing their best to keep that 6 year old safe.
Whether you get jealous when your spouse is with another person is of no debate. Of course you will, but the desire for more control is independent of insecurity and varies with personality.
I’m not sure I follow this part–do you mean you believe that jealousy is an inevitable response when your spouse is with another person?
Translated to french
I like this note, so I traduced it in french in my blog: http://blogs.kd2.org/bohwaz/?2005/08/11/48-quelques-reflexions-sur-la-securite-des-relations
I hope you’ll agree to this translation, if not just say it I’ll remove it from my blog.
Thanks!
Re: Translated to french
I don’t speak more than a handful of words in French, so I’ll just call it good… 🙂
Re: Translated to french
Cool 😉
Re: Translated to french
I don’t speak more than a handful of words in French, so I’ll just call it good… 🙂
Translated to french
I like this note, so I traduced it in french in my blog: http://blogs.kd2.org/bohwaz/?2005/08/11/48-quelques-reflexions-sur-la-securite-des-relations
I hope you’ll agree to this translation, if not just say it I’ll remove it from my blog.
Thanks!
I agree. It would be a more accurate analogy (albeit longer) if low self-esteem were likened to the driftwood after the drowning man was saved.
Imagine this instead:
This man is in a horrible boating accident and grabs onto a piece of driftwood, clinging to it to save himself. The driftwood is an poor specimen to be used as a life preserver, but it’s just enough to save the man from actually drowning until the man is rescued. The experience was so horrible that the man begins carrying the piece of drftwood about with him just in case he ever needs to use it again. It doesn’t matter that he’s not on a boat or that he doesn’t go near pools of water any more, still he carries that driftwood about with him, in the shower, to work, in the car, when he goes to bed. He can’t seem to let go of the tool that once saved him, even when it starts getting in the way of his relationships and prevents him from getting promotions and moving up in the world. Even though people look at him and go – jeez, there’s just something wrong there – still he carries that bit of driftwood about with him.
Because really, that’s what low self esteem is. A past tool generated from a specific need that is now no longer useful, is a problem, and is a hinderance. The problem is that once you’ve protected yourself with something for a long time, it’s hard to give it up, even when you know that it’s causing problems. In fact, even if you can realize this, and you can either chip away at the low self-esteem or set it aside for short periods of time, you’ll find yourself reverting back to it periodically simply from habit, or because you’re encountering a similar situation to the original.
So, the man might learn that he can set aside the driftwood at work which is nowhere near the water, but if he happens to go out onto a pier or dockside restaurant for a social situation, he might pick that driftwood up for that instance because he’s going to be near a body of water again. And if he’s not careful, he might not set it aside again after that because he’s comfortable carrying it.
Re: I have a degree in Anth, may as well share…
Sure, but a person can defer his happiness for the sake of another for a short period of time, and sometime in the future have it work out for the best.
Alice puts aside her needs for Bob because Bob needs something right now, but later on, when Alice needs, Bob puts aside his needs to help her out. As long as the couple is communicating about their problems and their needs, it will work out.
For a more personal example, I have Rheumatoid Arthritis and is constantly doing things for me because I need him to, often putting aside his needs or wants to do so. None of them are big things, but he does a lot of small things on a day to day basis for me. When the pain and discomfort that I’m suffering this week (or originally for 9 months) is allieviated, I can go back to taking care of him. In addition, when he needs me, I will help him out, even if that’s a long time in the future.
Often for short term problems, partners will put aside their needs until the larger problem is addressed before going back to the normal life of a more ‘equal’ exchange.
So here’s my 2c’s:
For me, I believe my security also comes from how I was raised. I had two parents (albeit alcoholic and coping with their own dysfuntion) really loved each other. My mom, for some odd reason, was pretty open with her sexuality (given it was the 60’s) – she went skinny dipping with the neighbours – and if my dad ever got insecure, he hid it (probably by drinking). My mom taught us birth control, mostly by example – and that bodies aren’t dirty and that there are a lot of good people in the world.
And since then I’ve learned: I have to be a whole person before I can share a part of me and still be whole. I cannot give away what I don’t have. If I don’t love myself, I believe I cannot love another. I was obsessed, in my first marriage, and addicted to my ex. I was “in love” with my ex but I don’t know that lust equates love.
I also cannot trust someone else if I cannot trust myself. It is only the last few years that I trust myself, my choices, my reasons – and I like who I am. And if I like who I am, I can like someone who likes themself. And I can swap a bit of myself for a bit of someone else and still be whole, and they can be whole.
For me, life is about balance – but it is only by going to both extremes in the first marriage, the reaps the benefits. Also, I teach other people how to treat me – and if I take good care of me – my partner, and my friends do too. And in return, I treat them the way I expect me to be treated.
I do not do for my partner what he can do for himself, but I do offer to help and I do try and do nice things for him.
As to what you posted – everyone is at different places in the whole “life” thing. Some people, IMHO, may be at an extreme in the journey toward balance. Others may simply never get the lesson. I have seen really jealous people behave inappropriately. I think what they don’t get is – it is alright to be jealous. All of us feel that way at some point, if we are still able to feel. But it isn’t okay to behave inappropriately – toward ourself or others. So many people just don’t want to take personal responsibility for their actions – and IMHO that’s what it boils down to.
I’m sure I could wax poetic about this for hours – Pages even – but I’ll spare you.
Good post – got me thinking 🙂
“And since then I’ve learned: I have to be a whole person before I can share a part of me and still be whole.”
Indeed, that’s one of the cornerstones of a healthy relationship, and is a valuable tool for avoiding the kind of situation I’m talking about–sublimating yourself in your partner.
So here’s my 2c’s:
For me, I believe my security also comes from how I was raised. I had two parents (albeit alcoholic and coping with their own dysfuntion) really loved each other. My mom, for some odd reason, was pretty open with her sexuality (given it was the 60’s) – she went skinny dipping with the neighbours – and if my dad ever got insecure, he hid it (probably by drinking). My mom taught us birth control, mostly by example – and that bodies aren’t dirty and that there are a lot of good people in the world.
And since then I’ve learned: I have to be a whole person before I can share a part of me and still be whole. I cannot give away what I don’t have. If I don’t love myself, I believe I cannot love another. I was obsessed, in my first marriage, and addicted to my ex. I was “in love” with my ex but I don’t know that lust equates love.
I also cannot trust someone else if I cannot trust myself. It is only the last few years that I trust myself, my choices, my reasons – and I like who I am. And if I like who I am, I can like someone who likes themself. And I can swap a bit of myself for a bit of someone else and still be whole, and they can be whole.
For me, life is about balance – but it is only by going to both extremes in the first marriage, the reaps the benefits. Also, I teach other people how to treat me – and if I take good care of me – my partner, and my friends do too. And in return, I treat them the way I expect me to be treated.
I do not do for my partner what he can do for himself, but I do offer to help and I do try and do nice things for him.
As to what you posted – everyone is at different places in the whole “life” thing. Some people, IMHO, may be at an extreme in the journey toward balance. Others may simply never get the lesson. I have seen really jealous people behave inappropriately. I think what they don’t get is – it is alright to be jealous. All of us feel that way at some point, if we are still able to feel. But it isn’t okay to behave inappropriately – toward ourself or others. So many people just don’t want to take personal responsibility for their actions – and IMHO that’s what it boils down to.
I’m sure I could wax poetic about this for hours – Pages even – but I’ll spare you.
Good post – got me thinking 🙂
It’s not that the person is making a conscious effort to “see” their insecurity in a positive light. They use the insecurity to stick with the mental vision of who and what they are.
“I’m not (insert adjective here) enough.” This kind of phrase is indicative of a way of thinking. The person with the low self esteem – heck any trait that is considered “bad” for you that you have decided is part of who you are and how you are defined becomes key to your own picture of yourself. You get so hung up on the “well, I just am this way,” that you don’t see that you are whatever way you chose to be and make effort to be.
If I decide I’m short-tempered, and when I fly off the handle I say “well, I’ve always been short tempered, heck my whole family is,” I’ve reinforced that way of being. When I give myself permission and encouragement to not be short tempered, I can change.
I don’t think folks necessarily realize what they’re doing when they foster and maintain insecurity. In self-reflection that people generally avoid in life, lies an escape from “I’m just this way.”
You’re right. I agree. In my ‘longer’ driftwood analogy above, I neglected to mention that the person may begin to see the driftwood as a part of himself or herself because it once was useful and has been around so long. In fact, the person may never even realize that it’s something that need to be changed because it may have been picked up so early that it’s ‘always’ been there.
Re: I have a degree in Anth, may as well share…
Good point, and good examples.
I’d go so far as to say that, in some circumstances, making long term or even permanent sacrifices is not necessarily a bad thing or at all unhealthy.
Example: I will never in my life get to experience skydiving.‘s concerns about my personal safety lead her to forbid me from doing so. I’d like to try skydiving, and I think that the risk is manageable, but I’m completely okay with her demand. I don’t see it as unreasonable or in any way unhealthy, and it’s a sacrifice I’m happy to make in order to assuage her fears. It isn’t a problem which needs to be fixed, and it isn’t something that is going to have a negative impact on our relationship- either in the short term or long term. The benefits I get from my relationship with her (whether derived from sacrifices on ‘s part or not) enormously outweigh any perceived cost- even if it is a permanent situation.
Obviously this is a mild example, but I can see this holding true for factors of much greater significance, and with much greater impact on our day-to-day lives, without resulting in any harm to or dissatisfaction with the relationship.
Low self-esteem can be like a straitjacket. From the outside, everyone can see that you’re trapped inside it and can’t function normally, but from the inside, it feels like a very comfortable security blanket. And yes, it does everything it can to maintain control over you and keep you from getting better, just like any other sickness.
Re: I have a degree in Anth, may as well share…
“I’d go so far as to say that, in some circumstances, making long term or even permanent sacrifices is not necessarily a bad thing or at all unhealthy.”
No, not at all. This can be part of the mutual give-and-take that’s part of a healthy relationship.
What I’m referring to is more specific; relationships where one person’s happiness always
Re: Translated to french
I don’t speak more than a handful of words in French, so I’ll just call it good… 🙂
Re: Translated to french
I don’t speak more than a handful of words in French, so I’ll just call it good… 🙂
“And since then I’ve learned: I have to be a whole person before I can share a part of me and still be whole.”
Indeed, that’s one of the cornerstones of a healthy relationship, and is a valuable tool for avoiding the kind of situation I’m talking about–sublimating yourself in your partner.
I’m sorry, gotta chime in against this one.
Your and Fatesgirl’s analogy of clung driftwood as a low self-esteem seems to me flawed. I see all low self-esteem (LSE?) as what’s left of any Esteem after Trauma, just as a scar or scab or missing limb shows physical damage. LSE is not something to which people desparately cling for salvation. Rather, LSE is the absence of esteem. Like the boater in the horrible accident, the driftwood may exhibit itself through behaviors that reveal the absence or diminishment of Esteem — distrust of intimacy, an unwillingness to commit lest one find oneself again betrayed, paranoia, uncertainty. Those bereft of confidence in actions that remind them of the accident, the trauma, must heal before they can abandon their driftwood/insecurities.
And where is the self-image in the boating analogy? It sank with the boat.
Also, the analogy is somewhat flawed in application. A six-foot boater can drown in waters under six feet in depth, given enough time to fall asleep and slip beneath the waves; one either survives the wreck or one does not. This seems to me too polar an analogy; when it comes to self-esteem, there exist an infinite number of strata in the emotional continuum one may inhabit, from the almost complete absence of self-worth to those skittish about only one activity (boating? polyamory? felching?) in their daily lives and thus unwilling to give it yet another try.
I’d like to suggest another analogy, one that maintains the imagery of buoyancy without the absolute polarity of death or survival; ballooning. Those with a strong sense of self-worth and full of confidence are, indeed, buoyant, their heads well above the clouds. Those with trauma have fallen, but not crashed. Until the hot-air bladder of their person has healed and refilled, they may indeed be better off avoiding high-stakes shenanigans, choosing instead to hover just above the trees. The higher you go, the farther you have to fall, and the more sudden the stop.
Let me give an example of trauma that had to heal. A friend’s husband had trouble receiving blowjobs from his wife, who was more than willing to give them. Turns out he had a Psycho Bitch from Hell girlfriend who would blow him, and then with an acid disposition I find it hard to imagine anyone else achieving, tell him that he “enjoyed it too much.” (you know who you are, Sandy) As if such a thing were possible!
My friend had to pointedly remind him that he could enjoy her head as much as he possibly could, and had to constantly positively reinforce this message by sucking him dry as much as possible and, after each hoovering, cuddle and say sweet things. He finally got over the PSoH’s traumatic conditioning, but recovery and his wife’s therapy took a lot out of him. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I do agree that many seem to cling to behaviors indicative of trauma long after it seems they should; might it be that they have not just not allowed themselves to heal, but that the trauma was severe enough that they need help healing? Given the number of people that have benefitted from therapy both official and just from very good friends and lovers, I suspect that might just be. It might very well be also that, unseen by anyone but themselves, they are deflated by a two-faced person in their lives, a secret abuser that relishes the other’s lack of confidence. Think Sybil’s mom, or Joan Crawford and her daughter.
I am a bit torn, because I’ve seen people that should Just Fucking Get Over It; but I also wish anyone luck and hope getting the balloon reinflated. I’ve been there, the skimming the powerlines getting ever closer, and it sucks. It is indeed that sinking feeling.
I’ve been here too
. . . do you mean you believe that jealousy is an inevitable response when your spouse is with another person?
For those that have the jealous response, jealousy is not a rational, reasoned, optional response. It simply Is. Furthermore, it exists in all cultures on all continents. It Is, and will not merely be denied out of existence for those that wish such an absence. If one has it, one may be stuck with it.
On the other hand, like all emotions and abilities in the human catalog, jealous behaviors vary in intensity from person to person, and can fluctuate in intensity as one ages, so it may not be around forever, or may return/appear when you least need or expect it.
Harlan Ellison once pointed out that humans have the most advanced neocortex in the animal kingdom, giving them unmatched abilities in reasoning and communication; but the part of the brain that regulates emotional response (cerebellum?) is as complex as an orangutang’s. Therefore, we use our big brain logic to rationalize the actions our primitive brain emotions prompted us to undertake.
I have very close associations with folks in long-term polyamory (which I would be happy to discuss off-blog). These associations have led me to believe strongly that only a select few have control over the jealous thing — or are not controlled by it — enough to attempt multiple loves without disaster and distraction.
Relationship security
Considering how far apart we are I think we both need to feel secure in each other. I trust you and hope you trust me.Any questions I had about Jen was trying to establish what sort of relationship you do have with her but I can see some of the probing ones could be seen as jealousy by another– don’t worry be happy.
Friction may not be the case of insecurity though but if you do not find a balance between friends and lovers then one or both may feel neglected. Not because they’re insecure but thru a sense of entitlement after all you’ve made a commitment to them you should take that into account when its a choice between bowling with the boys or a romantic anniversary with the significant other (exaggerated examples!! unless yo’re a redneck in which case the answer’s obvious– option A every time no real insult to rednecks meant– honest!!
As for needs any relationgship is a balancing act and a dynamic one at that. Give and take and communication helps but only if they speak the same “language”. In the above example making Bob happy is what makes Ann happy. It may seem one-sided to an outsider but if they are secure in that they are satisfying the other’s “need” – in Bob’s case whatever makes him happy
_ in Ann’s case satisfying those needs.
Then the relatonship works. It only becomes unbalanced if Bob starts to queston if he’s really making her happy or begins to doubt that she is happy.
Or if Ann begins to think– hang on what about me!
The balance works if he is yin to her yang (or is it the other way round I can never remember) but not if they both start to pull and demand.
This may make her a doormat in one person’s eyes or a caring person in another’s.
If they’re both secure and happy who are we to judge! If not there’s always the marriage counsellor or the priest or therapist etc.
Relationship security
Considering how far apart we are I think we both need to feel secure in each other. I trust you and hope you trust me.Any questions I had about Jen was trying to establish what sort of relationship you do have with her but I can see some of the probing ones could be seen as jealousy by another– don’t worry be happy.
Friction may not be the case of insecurity though but if you do not find a balance between friends and lovers then one or both may feel neglected. Not because they’re insecure but thru a sense of entitlement after all you’ve made a commitment to them you should take that into account when its a choice between bowling with the boys or a romantic anniversary with the significant other (exaggerated examples!! unless yo’re a redneck in which case the answer’s obvious– option A every time no real insult to rednecks meant– honest!!
As for needs any relationgship is a balancing act and a dynamic one at that. Give and take and communication helps but only if they speak the same “language”. In the above example making Bob happy is what makes Ann happy. It may seem one-sided to an outsider but if they are secure in that they are satisfying the other’s “need” – in Bob’s case whatever makes him happy
_ in Ann’s case satisfying those needs.
Then the relatonship works. It only becomes unbalanced if Bob starts to queston if he’s really making her happy or begins to doubt that she is happy.
Or if Ann begins to think– hang on what about me!
The balance works if he is yin to her yang (or is it the other way round I can never remember) but not if they both start to pull and demand.
This may make her a doormat in one person’s eyes or a caring person in another’s.
If they’re both secure and happy who are we to judge! If not there’s always the marriage counsellor or the priest or therapist etc.
I can completely see that analogy. However, in the case of my own low self esteem, the idea of the driftwood after the rescue is more accurate. Low self esteem was a tool that is no longer useful to me, and I ought to toss it away, but it’s difficult because I often find myself in similiar situations where in the past I would have needed it but now I no longer do.
I think that low self esteem manifests itself differently for each person suffering from it and depending on what caused it in the first place.
Yeah, the totally subjective nature of outward behavior/inward motivation completely skews meaningful analysis. I too wandered around in a fog of self-loathing until I willed myself to heal — or was I ready to heal only when I was able to make the decision to do so? Hard to say. Very chicken and egg.
Re: Translated to french
Cool 😉
Re: I’ve been here too
“For those that have the jealous response, jealousy is not a rational, reasoned, optional response. It simply Is. Furthermore, it exists in all cultures on all continents. It Is, and will not merely be denied out of existence for those that wish such an absence. If one has it, one may be stuck with it.”
Jealousy is a part of the human emotional condition, no doubt about it. Yet so are anger, fear, sadness, and so on, yet you will often hear people say “Oh, i’m a jealous person” but not so often hear people say “Oh, I’m an angry person.”
Like all emotional responses, jealousy does not exist in a vacuum. It’s a response to something–but unlike most other emotions, jealousy is often a composite emotion, an emotional response built from other emotions (such as insecurity and fear of loss).
What’s interesting about jealousy is that vey often, people believe that it is an inevitable emotional response we have no power whatsoever over. We live in a society that tells us when we should be jealous and under what circumstances, and tells us that jealousy is the only appropriate response to certain things…is it any wonder that so many people spend so much of their time feeling jealous? Yet for all that, jealousy is really not that difficult to get rid of.
You’re right that it can’t be wished away. People often try to suppress jealousy by telling themselves that they shouldn’t feel it, and by squashing it–which, as with any emotional response, rarely works. An emotional response can’t just be squashed; thousands of years later, the Catholics still haven’t learned that squashing an emotion like sexual attraction simply causes it to leak out in other, unexpected ways.
But jealousy can be understood. It is not an inevitable response to, say, seeing your partner kiss someone else. It’s built on something–often insecurity, often low self-esteem, often fear of loss, whatever. Address that thing it is built on–fix the insecurity, address the fear of loss–and you’ll find that there’s no need to suppress the jealousy; it simply goes away on its own. (The same is true for other emotional responses as well; address the thing making you angry and the anger goes away.)
It’s more comfortable, though, to build a system that permits you to avoid the things which may trigger your fear of loss or insecurity or whatever, to buld an entire mechanism designed to keep you from confronting these things. This is one way to address jealousy, but it’s a bit like dealing with a phobia by building a life that never brings you into contact with the thing you’re afraid of–rather than making the jealousy or the phobia go away, all you’ve done is give in to them to such an extent that you build your life around them. Which is, I think, unfortunate.
We live in a world that teaches us to be disempowered in the face of jealousy, and furthermore, which tells us we’re weird if we do NOT feel jealous. It’s not any surprise at all that most people handle their jealousy poorly.
Re: I’ve been here too
“We live in a world that teaches us to be disempowered in the face of jealousy, and furthermore, which tells us we’re weird if we do NOT feel jealous. It’s not any surprise at all that most people handle their jealousy poorly.”
Hmmm. . . .
Thinking back to the more “free and liberated” 60s and 70s, and observing the young still in the bloom of horniness and the sexual revolution, I can remember when it was not cool to feel jealous. Back then, jealousy was regarded by those just waiting for the revolution or whatever as a Western culture hang-up, a way of enslaving women in a patriarchal society.
Still, people got jealous.
Since I read your post, I’ve been thinking a lot not just about jealousy in particular, but about emotion in general. I realize I know people who simply do not display certain emotions. Dave, for example, a friend since childhood, seems born without the capacity to mourn the loss of a person. He still feels weird about his mother’s death, because he never felt badly about it. He didn’t want her dead, but he can’t understand why he never regarded it as a big deal. He didn’t tell anyone for almost a year simply because he regarded it so lightly. Also, he’s the guy that’s impossible to track down, because he never feels the absence of friends, and therefore makes no effort to keep in touch. He’s great when you do see him, and acts as if you just saw him yesterday, which leads me to believe that he sees everyone in the same light. If you are there, hooray; if not, no big.
I myself have no “God shaped hole” as the Christers call it, no aching, longing, need to surrender to any higher power. Even when I putatively held a belief in the standard deity, I felt no void filled, and soon questioned why I had succumbed to the pressure to believe. Others (Bob Dylan comes to mind) just have to believe. They don’t know what to worship, but worship they must. Think also of all the folks who refuse to subscribe to any organized religion, but still hold “creative visualization” sessions — prayer without an addressee. They also can’t not believe in something.
On an extreme side, think of sociopaths, those with the complete inability to feel remorse for their actions. Rapists, serial killers, those with issues of insecurity and desire for control that warps their actions in ugly and violent ways.
So, you might very well be correct, that jealousy is symptomatic of other states of well-being; but by that logic the ability to feel remorse, or the degree one feels loss, might also be symptomatic. I’m not so sure. There are those that feel physical pain intensely, and those that have to be checked regularly for injuries because they were born without the ability to feel any pain. On jealousy, I’m leaning toward an opinion that puts emotional responses closer to physical responses.
Can these states change? Absolutely. I myself remember vividly the devastation of earlier betrayals, and the relative inconvenience of those that came later in life. I laugh at it, the “callousness” I seem to have developed; but maybe it is maturity and a growing sense of well-being and independance.
Re: I’ve been here too
“Thinking back to the more “free and liberated” 60s and 70s, and observing the young still in the bloom of horniness and the sexual revolution, I can remember when it was not cool to feel jealous. Back then, jealousy was regarded by those just waiting for the revolution or whatever as a Western culture hang-up, a way of enslaving women in a patriarchal society.
Still, people got jealous.”
Yep. Of course they did.
Jealousy is not an immutable fact of nature; it is possible for a person not to be jealous. However, you do not defeat jealousy simply by trying to squash it; you defeat it by listening to what it is saying, examining what lies beneath it, and addressing those things.
Believing it’s a “Western cultural hang-up” is silly, and it doesn’t qualify as “addressing the roots of the feeling.” The roots of the feeling are much more compex than that; and if you don’t address it by the roots, you’re not going to get rid of it. The 60s approach to jealousy is about as effective as faith healing; make-believe doesn’t really cut it as an approach to emotional OR physical ills. 🙂
“On an extreme side, think of sociopaths, those with the complete inability to feel remorse for their actions. Rapists, serial killers, those with issues of insecurity and desire for control that warps their actions in ugly and violent ways.”
I don’t know how useful it is to consider a true sociopath when trying to understand the normal spectrum of human emotional responses; a true sociopath has a brain which is chemically and physiologically different from that of a non-sociopath. Sociopathy seems linked to extreme abuse during a certain critical period of childhood while the brain is still developing, and is also linked to the presence of a promoter gene which is activated by long-term exposure to stress hormones during that period of time–absent either the abuse or the gene, both of which must be present, you don’t end up with a sociopath.
It’s true that different people have a different emotional experience. What I believe, though, is that this emotional experience is not fixed and immutable. Certain people may, for whatever reason, be more susceptible to a particular emotion, or experience it more easily–but that does not mean these people are a slave to it. They can choose to change themselves and their view of the world such that that emotion no longer rules them, if they want; it’s just that the choice to do so is easier for some people than for others.
What happens with many–perhaps most–people is that they allow their emotional responses to control them, making decisions based on their emotions (or, in the case of responses such as fear and jealousy, making decisions to avoid those things they associate with the emotion), all without ever questioning those emotions, trying to understand them, or trying to address them.
Re: I’ve been here too
First of all, I’d like to sincerely thank you for taking time on this topic. For some reason it fascinates me, and obviously you have given it copious and constructive thought.
“What happens with many–perhaps most–people is that they allow their emotional responses to control them, making decisions based on their emotions (or, in the case of responses such as fear and jealousy, making decisions to avoid those things they associate with the emotion), all without ever questioning those emotions, trying to understand them, or trying to address them.”
Not to sound flippant, I am reminded of a Letterman joke he told on the Tonight Show (with Carson), about guys that can do anything, and how aggravating they can seem to regular folk: “You’re serious?” the guy says, “You bought one of those? You can save a bunch of money building your own refridgerator.”
The joke, of course, is that not everyone can — or even should — build something complex and potentially dangerous. The same can be said for people trying to deal with complex emotional issues.
Should people conquer all their fears? If they find them debilitating, certainly. But fear is also constructive, leading people away from the edges of crumbling cliffs and poisenous creatures. One should work toward ridding one’s self of irrational fears, such as of bathrooms and the color pink, and work toward remembering and dealing with the unpleasantness Daddy did in the pink bathroom when one was young (true, unfortunate story of a friend’s friend). But Fanged Snakes? Healthy fears are not oxymorons.
Back to jealousy. I’ve met people who swing, others who flinch when their partner so much as glances at another. I have seen the gamut, and suppose I will see much, much more in the future. I have felt jealousy, debilitating to mild, and felt more ominously sometimes the conspicuous lack thereof. I try to remain in tune with my feelings, and to trace like tangled schematics the origins of responses before it becomes necessary to hire a professional (so far so good, knock wood).
I guess I accept that I have a Jealous Response. When I examine my feelings, I try to deduce what causes the Response, not that I have one; I do not, however, see the Response as the culprit to my discord. I see it as a symptom.
And the discord can be shockingly disruptive, so I guess I hold a strange fascination for those that feel none.
Again, not to sound flippant, I am genuinely curious: Have you always been free of such emotional discordia, or was there specific introspection and revelation that finally calmed the beast?
Tell me, Sir, how did you build your refridgerator?
Re: I’ve been here too
Now you’ve gone and done it!
This is exactly why my last relationship failed.
The thing is, I eventually “grew up” and realized that my needs weren’t being met, but not knowing what they were, he couldn’t make me happy.
This went on for some 8 years. I’ve never been able to put it into words as clear as these. Luckily, with some really supportive friends, and a great therapist, I have been able to overcome many of my self-image issues. Thank you so much!
This is exactly why my last relationship failed.
The thing is, I eventually “grew up” and realized that my needs weren’t being met, but not knowing what they were, he couldn’t make me happy.
This went on for some 8 years. I’ve never been able to put it into words as clear as these. Luckily, with some really supportive friends, and a great therapist, I have been able to overcome many of my self-image issues. Thank you so much!
This is a great entry! I liked many of the comments just as much as the original entry itself. Thanks!
This is a great entry! I liked many of the comments just as much as the original entry itself. Thanks!
I might throw a comment in on this one myself.
I think the points people have raised are valid. There’s another element to it though. To stretch the metaphor much further, the drowning man has kept paddling for weeks, he’s collected up bits of driftwood hoping to keep afloat. They are not proving useful, but in the time bobbing there, he’s shaped them into all sorts of interesting things. One is shaped for waving at boats, another is just the right shape for getting aboard (or so he thinks) and another one would be really useful to the captain if the right boat came by. Some of them at least float on their own, but others are actually weighing him down, but they look so useful, and you never know which one will be the useful one.
The problem is to abandon the driftwood and swim for the shore is a bold, scary maneuver.
Now myself, I’ve suffered (and at times do suffer) low self-esteem. But I’ve also watched people with (as it seemed to me) too much self esteem. Over the years I’ve crafted my nervousness-es into (over?)elaborate courtesy, detailed awareness of others needs etc. Now to abandon the low self-esteem I feel I’d have to drop the features I’ve built from it.
Don’t get me wrong. I know I don’t have to lose these traits to gain self-esteem, but the low self-esteem part says hang on tight. You might lose them.
I’ve been fortunate in that other things have come along in my life that boosted my sense of self-worth, but I still struggle to put my needs first ever.
Still well written Tacit (and all responders also).
I must have a chat with my wife sometime soon. 🙂