st...@panix.com wrote:
>You and R need some structure in your relationship; you need something
>special for the two of you, and you need some time and space to
>redevelop trust. If you can get those things established, then R might
>not feel so threatened by your relationship with E.
I also think R lacks legitimacy to make these demands because he broke up with
Clorissa after getting smitten by K.
>Your mileage might vary, but personally I think it would be a wrong move
>to let R dictate any of the terms of your relationship with E or
>encourage his being competitive with E for time and priority. Set up
>some structure with R and then make a rule that what goes on outside
>that structure is something he doesn't have a say in. Even a "primary"
>doesn't have to have a say in everything you do.
This gets tricky for me. Of course, a primary needn't get a say in everything a
partner does, especially if the issues in question don't affect the primary
relationship. But what if the effects are emotional and intangible? If R can't
stand it when Clorissa is naked in a hot tub with E and is losing sleep over
that, doesn't he theoretically deserve a say in his ongoing physical/mental
health? The theoretical answer is obviously yes, which is why legitimacy enters
the discussion. If R proved historically unable/unwilling to keep his
commitment to Clorissa, he should lose veto privileges.
>More generally, I guess what I would tend to do in a case like this is
>tell R where my boundaries are, and make it clear that I am open to
>changing my behavior that's within those boundaries, and I am open to
>listening actively to whatever he has to say about his feelings about
>those boundaries, but I am not open to changing my behavior outside
>those boundaries, and I am not open to his having a say in where the
>boundaries are.
I don't think any meaningful long-term romantic relationship can survive based
on that model. In real life, everyone affected by certain behaviors develops
boundaries around them. It's not fair for one person to include/exclude
boundaries while another is affected. It's also probably futile for men like me
to try and convince women that this boundary paradigm won't work for me.
>I'm speaking from the point of view of someone who has been very jealous
>at times. My jealousy comes from not knowing where I stand and feeling
>trapped or feeling like I'm expected to be more committed than my
>partner is.
This is precisely the problem here. R swore off his commitment upon finding K.
With what right does he now demand that Clorissa show him even more commitment?
>Structure helps me know where I stand. But the feeling
>trapped /overcommitted part is tricky because chances are I trapped
>myself by making commitments in my head before enough trust/structure
>exists in the relationship to support them.
I tend to operate according to a converse paradigm; we create trust and
structures to support the kind of commitment we desire. If commitments are
predicated on structures and trust, what motivates the establishment of
structures and trust?
>If R is someone who throws himself into things and then has doubts afterward,
that might be part of what's going on for him.
Throwing oneself into things and subsequently doubting is one of those non-
autonomous behaviors I believe falls outside the realm of individual
boundaries. Here is R, asking Clarissa to change her relationships for him
without demonstrating enough consistency to substantiate those demands. I think
that for everything demanded, the demander must provide something equally
difficult.