We, Thee, Me (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

lovingpet -> We, Thee, Me (9/5/2009 2:39:32 PM)

How do personal identity and motivatioin and the relational joint identity and motivation interplay? I think this gets to be an issue in relationships. I think it is more a problem now than it has ever been. The dissolution of individual identity and interests to become part of another whole has become nearly a taboo. The individual is touted highly. Relationships that risk the individual to any significant degree now have a label, codependence. This is not to say this is not a very valid concept and that some relationships fall beyond the bounds of what a relationship can reasonably be expected to handle, but that dependence and vulnerability can be mistaken for a dysfunctional relational mode.

Me first. Protect my interests first. I get to pursue anything that makes me happy. If it hurts me, then it has to go. If it isn't what I like, I'm going to go find something I do like. Me me me!!!!! Then comes you. You have to meet all of the needs, wants, and desires that I require of you. You have to change because I'm not going to. If there is something to be sacrificed you can give up what you want or I will give YOU up. We doesn't even exist in this because the two people are only interacting as far as their own spaces are not invaded. The moment one begins to bleed over into the other, the "me" is viewed as corrupted, damaged, or harmed somehow because it has been altered from the original state and this is bad. The relationship ends in order to return things back to as close to the original as it was before.

In this mode, self preservation is clearly not only a top priority, but necessary. It is not a matter of being selfish, jaded, or otherwise a bad person, but rather a choice of focus and a way relating to others. It has consequences though. I think it determines how much trust and openess one is really going to have with their partner. I think it makes for a need to safeguard self.

Then there is you, you, you. You come first. I am doing it all for you. As long as you have what you need, want, and desire, then it doesn't matter what happens to me. It sounds kinda noble. One person dissolves and the other person remains fully intact. The two separate entities never disappear. There is a boundary that holds one partner's self fully unpenetrated by the other. The two do not mix, though they share all the contact points.

In this mode, self preservation is abjectly spurned by one and pursued by both for the interest of one of the partners. Trust and openess have no real meaning because there is no longer two things relating. Vulnerability is total with one and non existent for the other. One person may appear to be a monster and the other a saint. Neither is true. Once again it is just a way of relating. It leaves one safeguarding self and one with a self that is completely unprotected.

We come first. Two individual selves merge. They merge needs, wants, desires, and motivations. They sacrifice many pursuits, rights, and take on various obligations. There is no need for boundaries between them because the separate selves are fully dissolved into a new self called "us" or "we". The people identify as one independent unit. It functions based on utilizing the strengths of and shoring up the weaknesses of the individual original components. The presence of these original two selves is there on an elemental level, so to speak, but never to be separated back into pure form again.

In this mode self preservation is both spurned for each individual. It is aggressively pursued for the new "we" that has formed. The interests of the "we" must be protected at all costs. In order to do that, it means that some of those things the individuals would have wanted or needed to ensure will be covered. Those individual self interests that do not support the betterment and stability of the "we" will not be granted any allowance. Once again, however it may sound, the people and the way of relating are neither good nor bad.

Which is best conducive to an intimate relationship? Which works best in the context of D/s? In M/s? If the choices are different, why? Of course this is subjective. I just wonder what people think. I did my best to describe these, but I think I have not done a very good job. Please be kind with that aspect and deal more particularly with the focal point of the relationships and the consquences, benefits, and drawbacks they present. I hope at least the point of my post is clear and that this can be discussed in some useful fashion.

lovingpet



leadership527 -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/5/2009 3:03:09 PM)

Well Pet, I don't have a clue or a desire to have a clue about what might be best for other people. But the thing you are hitting on is the thing I've oft-noted as "adversarial relationships" in my various postings. If two people are both in a relationship with a "me first" mentality, then what you have is more akin to an armed conflict than happily ever after. This, in my opinion, is by far the most common situation. If one person has a "me first" attitude, then what you have is likely not stable in the long-term as one partner gives incessantly and the other takes. Carol and I both retain a "we first" mentality and that mindset is certainly my lodestone when I am thinking about what commands to give or not give.

Frankly, if I wanted my life to be all about ME, I'd just go ahead and be single. That way, it really WOULD be all about me and, as a bonus, I wouldn't have all the hassle of coordinating my life with another human being.



littlewonder -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/5/2009 3:06:47 PM)

My life is rarely about "me". It's usually about "we"..be it my partner in life, my family, my friends, etc...

This idea of "me" is what causes problems in relationships and in the world in general. It causes us to lose perspective on consequences of our actions or inactions.



Acer49 -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/5/2009 3:17:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

How do personal identity and motivatioin and the relational joint identity and motivation interplay? I think this gets to be an issue in relationships. I think it is more a problem now than it has ever been. The dissolution of individual identity and interests to become part of another whole has become nearly a taboo. The individual is touted highly. Relationships that risk the individual to any significant degree now have a label, codependence. This is not to say this is not a very valid concept and that some relationships fall beyond the bounds of what a relationship can reasonably be expected to handle, but that dependence and vulnerability can be mistaken for a dysfunctional relational mode.

Me first. Protect my interests first. I get to pursue anything that makes me happy. If it hurts me, then it has to go. If it isn't what I like, I'm going to go find something I do like. Me me me!!!!! Then comes you. You have to meet all of the needs, wants, and desires that I require of you. You have to change because I'm not going to. If there is something to be sacrificed you can give up what you want or I will give YOU up. We doesn't even exist in this because the two people are only interacting as far as their own spaces are not invaded. The moment one begins to bleed over into the other, the "me" is viewed as corrupted, damaged, or harmed somehow because it has been altered from the original state and this is bad. The relationship ends in order to return things back to as close to the original as it was before.

In this mode, self preservation is clearly not only a top priority, but necessary. It is not a matter of being selfish, jaded, or otherwise a bad person, but rather a choice of focus and a way relating to others. It has consequences though. I think it determines how much trust and openess one is really going to have with their partner. I think it makes for a need to safeguard self.

Then there is you, you, you. You come first. I am doing it all for you. As long as you have what you need, want, and desire, then it doesn't matter what happens to me. It sounds kinda noble. One person dissolves and the other person remains fully intact. The two separate entities never disappear. There is a boundary that holds one partner's self fully unpenetrated by the other. The two do not mix, though they share all the contact points.

In this mode, self preservation is abjectly spurned by one and pursued by both for the interest of one of the partners. Trust and openess have no real meaning because there is no longer two things relating. Vulnerability is total with one and non existent for the other. One person may appear to be a monster and the other a saint. Neither is true. Once again it is just a way of relating. It leaves one safeguarding self and one with a self that is completely unprotected.

We come first. Two individual selves merge. They merge needs, wants, desires, and motivations. They sacrifice many pursuits, rights, and take on various obligations. There is no need for boundaries between them because the separate selves are fully dissolved into a new self called "us" or "we". The people identify as one independent unit. It functions based on utilizing the strengths of and shoring up the weaknesses of the individual original components. The presence of these original two selves is there on an elemental level, so to speak, but never to be separated back into pure form again.

In this mode self preservation is both spurned for each individual. It is aggressively pursued for the new "we" that has formed. The interests of the "we" must be protected at all costs. In order to do that, it means that some of those things the individuals would have wanted or needed to ensure will be covered. Those individual self interests that do not support the betterment and stability of the "we" will not be granted any allowance. Once again, however it may sound, the people and the way of relating are neither good nor bad.

Which is best conducive to an intimate relationship? Which works best in the context of D/s? In M/s? If the choices are different, why? Of course this is subjective. I just wonder what people think. I did my best to describe these, but I think I have not done a very good job. Please be kind with that aspect and deal more particularly with the focal point of the relationships and the consquences, benefits, and drawbacks they present. I hope at least the point of my post is clear and that this can be discussed in some useful fashion.

lovingpet

There is no "I" in a relationship, if all parties make it about "You" then "We" will be happy



kyraofMists -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/5/2009 5:47:08 PM)

What works best for us is that we do what is best for our relationship. We don't put ourselves first; our relationship is put first. We can do this because we made excellant choices about who to get in a relationship with. We did our due diligence before becoming a family and our individual needs will be met just by being in this relationship. Serving the relationship will give us all what we need and much of what we want.

It is hard to put the relationship first if your relationship is not meeting your needs. Once I was in the right relationship, it was extremely simple to put the relationship first.

Knight's Kyra



lally2 -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/5/2009 6:06:24 PM)

im not sure im fully equipped to answer this, but ill give it a go... [&:]

if we take it as understood that we are in a relationship that is highly compatible and shares similar goals then the W/we is merely a collaboration of those goals.  i dont see that as co-dependency atall, i just see that as a Ds or Ms dynamic thats working. in mainstream they might consider it dysfunctional, W/we dont and thats all that counts.

within that Ds and Ms remit the 'me' and 'you' does step aside to the dominant force otherwise it isnt Ds or Ms and as you say to maintain the dynamic thats the deal.  but you go on to say that W/we lose our individuality in the pursuit of this and here i disagree a bit.  to lose youre wants, dreams, desires and goals what do you become, an empty vessel - there is nothing there, nothing to work with, nothing to aspire to, nowhere to go.  if 'you' and 'me' just becomes a silent witness to everything going on around them then where is the feed back the emotions the interchange and growth, change and development, what happens to all of that, it cant not happen.  we are sentient beings.



Jeptha -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/5/2009 9:34:38 PM)

I am a little skittish about the "we" option, though that would seem to be the more noble on the face of it.

Not sure why, exactly.

There is another viewpoint; that the relationship we make constitutes a sort of third person...or third entity, let's say, and that both people must contribute to the growth and care of this third person/entity.

It's just a little metaphor, but I like how it sort of puts it out there as a sort of psychic entity/energy thing.

It's a little different from the traditional "we" ideal, I think, because it doesn't ask you to subsume your own identity in order to create this third thing...



agirl -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/6/2009 5:30:13 AM)

Echoing Jeff, I don't know what works best for anyone else in an intimate relationship of any type.

At various times there have been elements of all three of those *examples* in my relationship.

It's not all about *me* but sometimes is. It's not all about *him* but sometimes it is. It's not always about *we* because sometimes it is about *me* or *him*.

The focal point of our relationship is that we are both content in it and that we both want the same thing. When the balance that works for US gets shifted, we recognise it immediately, we talk about it, try to find out why and restore the balance.

lally mentioned being *highly compatable*.......and that's basically it. There's not a recipe for that.

agirl




















IronBear -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/6/2009 7:18:45 AM)

My home comes first no matter of the cost to me and this includes all which are part of the home. Only in personal matters do I think of "I" rather than "We". 



KNelson -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/6/2009 8:52:58 AM)

In any relationship, be it what you all term vanilla or what you all term kink, there has to be balance. This statement: There is no "I" in a relationship, if all parties make it about "You" then "We" will be happy is IMO wrong. All three need to co-exist in a well functioning relationship, imo of any sort. If the focus is on the we to the exclusion of individual needs then the I and the you will be neglected in ways that harm the we. It's all about balance and communication.



leadership527 -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/6/2009 10:58:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KNelson
In any relationship, be it what you all term vanilla or what you all term kink, there has to be balance. This statement: There is no "I" in a relationship, if all parties make it about "You" then "We" will be happy is IMO wrong. All three need to co-exist in a well functioning relationship, imo of any sort. If the focus is on the we to the exclusion of individual needs then the I and the you will be neglected in ways that harm the we. It's all about balance and communication.
I won't argue with this. But there is a question of perspective. ALL of my commands are thought about from a "WE" focus. But as a part of that thinking, I have to deconstruct it down to "me" or "her" sometimes. The individual parts are still what is making up the whole. It's just the actual decision is not evaluated on any individual part of the relationship, but rather the relationship as a whole. I generally look for the net win/loss between all three parties in my relationship, "Carol", "Jeff", and "Us".



DavanKael -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/6/2009 11:50:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

Well Pet, I don't have a clue or a desire to have a clue about what might be best for other people. But the thing you are hitting on is the thing I've oft-noted as "adversarial relationships" in my various postings. If two people are both in a relationship with a "me first" mentality, then what you have is more akin to an armed conflict than happily ever after. This, in my opinion, is by far the most common situation. If one person has a "me first" attitude, then what you have is likely not stable in the long-term as one partner gives incessantly and the other takes. Carol and I both retain a "we first" mentality and that mindset is certainly my lodestone when I am thinking about what commands to give or not give.

Frankly, if I wanted my life to be all about ME, I'd just go ahead and be single. That way, it really WOULD be all about me and, as a bonus, I wouldn't have all the hassle of coordinating my life with another human being.


Gotta say I agree with Jeff 100% on the 'we' orientation being necessary to making a relationship work (Ie: partners satisfied within it, etc.).  With my ex-, my 'we' and his 'me' (Meaning him, not me) orientation, that's a pretty basic but also accurate description of what destroyed a beautiful friendship and relationship. 
  Davan



MasterFireMaam -> RE: We, Thee, Me (9/7/2009 2:50:56 PM)

I would like to put forth that this passing from me to thee to we is a natural path of emotional/relationship progression rather than three separate ways of doing things. Each is a stage of development...and many can get stuck in one stage.

Master Fire



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.328125