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

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.

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.