Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Note: 
    (People who have responded to this before, you may 'migrate' your reply
    to here if you wish, or not if you don't !)
        
    re: .0
    
    Speaking for myself (no psychological references given or presumed),
    I find that when a "serious" long term relationship comes to a close,
    the "needs" remain, but  the ability to enter into another "serious"
    relationship is diminished, uncertain, or 'hazardous'; due to the
    "rebound" effect (or theory).
    
    (The 'rebound' effect is that a rejected person is likely to latch onto
    the first 'reasonbley satisfying' person to come along, whether or not
    there is a reasonble chance of a "long term" compatible relationship.
    (personal opinion of the rebound effect))
    
    Voila' The "TEMPORARY RELATIONSHIP". Both (all) parties agree that what
    they have is a temporary relationship, which can be broken when
    it is no longer convenient or desirable (to either of the parties).
    
    Somehow it would seem that a Temporary Relationship (TR) is longer
    than a one_night_stand, but shorter than a "permanent committment",
    and is limited only by the needs/wants/desires of the people involved.
    
    Bob    

    I am capable of either a temporary relationship or a permanent one.
    I would know initially what the potential was almost immediately.
    At my age and inclination I would consider a TR for many reasons.
    
         .  to test out whether I wanted a PR
         .  to enjoy the company of a good friend
         .  to accompany a friend on a trip
         
    But if I met someone with whom I thought I might fall in love with
    or with whom might fall in love with me (is that possible?) I would
    not put a disclaimer on our relationship "for as long as it lasts".
    
    TR's are very good for people who are in transition.  Instead of
    planning for a future you tend to work out your individual goals
    and go back to your partner for feedback.  
    
    To me it would seem wise to develop a firm friendship before you
    enter into a TR.  The only danger is that one partner may have
    expectations that the situation will become permanent and the
    transition back to a platonic friendship will be difficult.
                                 
    I had a TR relationship for three years and for the most part it
    was very satisfactory.  We genuinely cared for each other and enjoyed
    each other's company.  The reason we did not have a PR is because
    we were not compatible in our interests and goals.  The TR ended
    because of distance and the friendship remained.  He passed away
    this spring.  
    
    I don't think we should debate types of relationships here.  I think
    we should answer Bob's questions.  Yes Bob, they do work.  No, they
    aren't without problems.

    "Doesn't Anybody Stay Together Anymore?"
    
    					-- Phil Collins
    

    
    How can anyone really know when they enter into a relationship whether
    it will turn out to be temorary or permanent?  Or, is every
    relationship really temporary - some for a few months, some for
    a few years?  One person mentioned a 3 yr. temporary relationship.
     I find that I consider 3 years to be relatively permanent.  I'd
    have to be really serious about somebody to spend three years of
    my life with them - unless it was just somebody I dated casually
    for 3 yrs. - but then I don't think I would even consider it a
    relationship.
    
    Is the definition of a permanent relationship the person you happen
    to be dating/living with at the time you die? !
    
    I think it would be really nice if people met, fell in love, and
    stayed that way for 30 or 40 years, but I'm beginning to wonder
    if that ever happens anymore.  At the same time, I resent the idea
    of somebody starting a relationship with me KNOWING ahead of time
    that they didn't want it to be permanent!  I think I would only
    consider casual dating, with no commitments, under those circumstances.
    
    Lorna
    

I think I would consider anything under five years temporary...  But then I am
sure that there are 'temporary' relationships that just continue on and on by
themselves.  The fact that there is no commitment there can be nice, if one or
the other does not think permanence is possible, or if the thought of permanence
or commitment is scary to one or the other.

A temporary relationship is when you meet someone really neat, that you really
want to get to know, and you can support each other; but in some way you are
incompatible, or you've been hurt to not have any faith in permanency, or you
are not "in love".  

I would not say that a Temporary Relationship is 'untill it ends' (or whatever
was said a few notes back), but as long as you *can* support each other - I
would not be one to leave at the hint of trouble. Or perhaps untill you meet
*the one* for you.  In the meantime you can have a happy fullfilled life,
without waiting all your life for a Mr. Right who never shows up!  That, to me,
is a bitter end! 

Temporary relationships can be **very** nice, let you relax, enjoy yourself,
heal, think, .... a middle ground between marriage and being alone.

Jim.

I would think so...  but it depends on the people...  I would think that you
would continue being *friends*...  As I think I've said, I can't think of any
people that I've been involved with that I ceased to love.  However, usually
reality, or distance, or time, or ... puts a limit on how you can express that
love.

Jim. 

    
    I also think it depends upon the people and the situation and that
    it can work and be a very nice experience.
    
    When I was in high school I became very close friends with a girl
    and through our four years of HS we became best friends, yet never
    dated because we were always involved with someone else.
    
    We both went to different colleges yet stayed close, we would get
    in touch with each other every once in a while. Soon we ended up
    seeing each other every once in a while for a weekend or vacation,
    being each others love/lover, having a wonderful time, forgetting
    the rest of the world, and then, when the vacation was over, we
    would go back to our lives, which included seeing other people.
    We always stayed very close friends.  We didn't see each other 
    often, maybe once every few months, yet we stayed in touch more
    than that.  This continued for a few years, until we both graduated
    and she moved out of state.  We still write each other occasionally
    and call each other maybe once a year.  We are still good friends.
    
    Our temporary relationship was just that, we knew we would never
    become a couple , and were never bothered by each others dates.
    It was a very open friendship that was more than a friendship, and
    also the longest female friendship I have had (12+ years).
    It worked out fine for both of us, and neither of us regrets it.
    This is the only such relationship I have ever had.
    
    I wasn't going steady with anyone else at the time ,if so I'm sure
    things would have been different.   
    
    I think this is probably unusual but shows that they can happen,
    and provide mutual comfort and love for those who do not want
    a long term relationship just yet, especially when you do not
    know were your life may lead in the next few years.
    
    Paul

    
    Re .8, I see what you mean now, and I agree.  In fact I think most
    of the relationships people have in their lives are probably of
    this temporary variety - one way or another.  The paragraph you
    put at the end about someone getting very involved, and then deciding
    later on that the relationship was temporary is what bothered me
    about the idea.  But, I still think that people can't really tell
    when they start a relationship what's going to happen.  Someone
    you start thinking of as temporary might turn out to permanent,
    or vice-versa.  
    
    Lorna
    

    The topic of Temporary Relationships was originally started in the
    Singles notesfile so I decided to transfer my reply to this conference.
    
    In one sense all relationships are temporary; "all good things must 
    come to an end," so to speak.   But then again, if it ended, it 
    obviously wasn't a "good thing."  Or maybe it was at the time, until
    something better came along or both came to the realization that
    it was no longer feasible.
    
    To quote the Rolling Stones, "You can't always get what you want." 
    However, you don't always want what you get.  So, you have
    two options:  you can either decide to make the best of what you've
    got or keep looking.  From my experience, I find that people enjoy
    a challenge.  When someone shows minimal interest, you're fascinated; 
    if someone throws themselves at your feet, you tend to lose interest 
    quickly.  I think people enjoy working toward something that they really 
    want.  What do you have to look forward to if the world is handed to you 
    on a silver platter?    
    
    I suppose one can interpret "temporary" to mean casual.  And, yes,
    they do work as long as both parties understand the extent of the
    relationship and are happy with the way things stand.  As long as
    both remain honest and open, both parties can just relax, have a
    good time and not worry about what others may think.  
    
    >>   Why bother with a temporary relationship if you can have the
         "real thing?"  
    
    Not everyone wants the "real thing."  Not everyone can have the
    "real thing" either.  We live in a society where people tend to
    be very independent and like to "do their own thing"; we enjoy certain 
    freedoms and are not always willing to give these up.  TR's are
    great for those who are reluctant to give up certain freedoms, yet
    still want to develop friendships.  A lot of people feel they are
    not ready to settle down into a serious relationship; it takes a
    great deal of time, hard work and committment to make a relationship
    work and you have to be ready and willing to do so.  Overall, temporary
    relationships are a good experience.  You get to meet a lot of
    different people and decide what type is right for you.  Thus,
    when you do decide to settle down with one person, you know exactly
    what you want, you're ready for it, and you'll go into the relationship
    with a much better attitude/outlook.  Since you already know what's
    out there, you'll appreciate what you have.
    
    And that's my $0.02!
    
    Still havin' fun,
    
    Nancy
    

        Gee, I was about to start a note about the various kinds of
        relationship between members of the opposite sex (or, I suppose,
        between homosexual members of the same sex, but not knowing
        about those first hand, I thought I'd keep it simple.) One of
        the main points of my intended note is that the vast majority of
        relationships are temporary. I was also going to bring up
        a related class--limited relationships.
        
        My thinking about this was sparked by the "how do you say good
        bye" note. You see, never had a problem with breaking up, it
        really wasn't all that traumatic. The reason was, I think, that
        I recognized that the vast majority of romances are temporary.
        Most will end by either breaking up or turning into a mere
        friendship. A small number will turn into permanent relationships.
        
        It is important to realize that until it does turn into a
        marriage (that is a relationship involving an unconditional
        permanent commitment), the relationship *IS* temporary and
        shouldn't be expected to last forever. When it does it isn't
        anyone's fault, it isn't unusual, it is expected, it is not a
        failure. (When a permanent relationship fails it is a big
        deal on the other hand, but of course I hold that they shouldn't
        be allowed to fail.)
        
        Another kind of non-permanent relationship is what I would call a
        "limited romance". These are like ordinary romances, except it
        is a declared goal that these never turn into a permanent
        relationship. This is the kind of thing I was talking about in
        the "chemistry" note. There are in my own life a couple of young
        ladies in whom I recognize the same spark, the same chemistry
        that I have with my wife. They are women with whom I feel I
        could have had a permanent relationship with except I already
        had one. 
        
        In many ways, my relationship with these ladies has been very
        like an ordinary romance, with the exception that it is
        constrained. There are things (like having sex and making
        permanent commitments) that we just will not do. But, within
        those constraints there's no reason why love can't grow or why
        intimacy can't flourish. Again, if you recognize what the
        relationship is, it can work much more readily. 
        
        For my money, sex should be kept out of limited romances. The
        pair-bonding aspects (to say nothing of the reproductive aspects)
        are just going to complicate things no end. The resolve to keep
        the relationship limited, to not turn it into a permanent thing,
        to not allow it come into conflict with the real permanent
        relationship, is going to be seriously threatened by good sex. 
        (Is there any other kind :-)?)
        
        JimB.

    Re: .17
         
    The replies to this note indicate that there is a variety of opinion
    around relationships, etc.  The one thing I have not seen in this
    note or any similar note is a selection process similar to ordering
    from Sears.
    
    What I have found is that as I grow in age and experience my
    relationships evolve as much from the brain as from the heart. 
    I happen to think that is good.  The naivety that suggests that
    opposites attract can be good for some people but as I observe the
    marriages that endured for twenty-five years these people were good
    friends, enjoyed the same things and had common goals.  That is
    hard to find.
    
    And yet if you find a person who enjoys one piece of your life you
    can spend time in that activity with that person without the
    constraints of permanent committment.
    
    I would like to be married to a man with whom I could share 95%
    of my life...I don't know if that is ever going to happen.  But
    I do know there are many men that I could enjoy some smaller percentage
    of my life and the relationship could be mutually satisfying.
    
    I hope we don't beat this thing to the ground.  I would like to
    see more honesty in relationships and this note has the potential
    of allowing both men and women to realize there is nothing wrong
    with enjoying today.  If we stay on the merry-go-round and keep
    trying to catch the gold ring we will get dizzy!

    Or maybe we know ourselves well enough to know that we can give
    best in a relationship that shares mutual activities and philosophies.

    
    RE:  The previous four replies.
    
    
    Thanks to .20 - you hit it right on the button!  I'm more than willing
    to give and compromise in a relationship as long as the other person
    is willing to do the same (many only know how to take).  But there
    has to be more than a willingness on both ends; there must be some
    commonality, too.  I'm insulted that .17 interpreted my response
    as shopping through a Sear's Catalog.  Granted, The Captain and
    Tenille sang about "shopping around."  In essence, we all do this
    (unconciously), don't we?  We don't date everyone we meet; we date
    those with common interests/goals.
    
    
    
          

        I'd like to both agree and disagree with 174.22.
        
        On the one hand, I think that there is much to much emphasis on
        what we get out of a relationship, and on the perfectly
        compatible mate and common interests, and not enough on how much
        we give, what we put into it. My own wife and I have a number of
        interests in common, but at the same time there are things that
        we do together in order to be together, things that one of us
        enjoys more than the other, but which we do for the company,
        which is more important than any other interest shared or not.
        
        On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that
        there is love in a temporary relationship. There are lots of
        reasons why we might enter into non-permanent relationships.
        Since almost all relationships with members of the opposite sex
        will not become permanent, it is perhaps quite healthy to start
        out a relationship with the idea in mid that it is not
        permanenet, to enjoy it for what it is rather than try to force
        it to be something that it is not. Treating it as temporary
        until the time when you both decide that it is the relationship
        you want to make permanent, may be realistic and may free you
        each to be yourselves and not the person that you think the
        other wants forever. 
        
        There is also no reason why you can't love more than one person.
        In fact, one rather hopes that the "typical" person can love at
        least 7.2 people (two parents, 1.6 siblings, one spouse, and 2.6
        offspring). Given this, it is quite possible, and even likely
        that each of us will love more than just one member of the
        opposite sex. Since love is not finite and, in fact, grows the
        more you give it, merely loving someone other than your spouse
        needn't hurt the spouse. On the other hand, how you treat the
        other person can affect your spouse. It is therefore that other
        relationships be limited and constrained.
        
        This sort of relationship is just the opposite of the fling or
        affair without love that 174.22 describes. It is more the love
        (and the friendship) without the fling, without the affair. It
        is a reveling in the warmth and the knowledge that the two of
        you are special people with a special bond.
        
        So, the bottom line is that while far too much of the emphasis
        in relationships (and everything else) in this coulture is on
        what's in it for #1, we mustn't allow our cynicism blind us to
        te fact that in our lives we will love many people and relate to
        them in a number of ways. We should value and enjoy each person
        and each relationship for who and what they are. 
        
        JimB.

    
    RE:  .22   
    
         I don't think anyone could or should "jump" on you for sharing
    that anecdote.  In fact, it illustrates just how selfish we can
    be sometimes.  I can sympathize with both sides - I've had experiences
    where I've done all of the giving or all of the taking.  Yes, I
    agree that the majority of temporary relationships are flings. 
    However, when a temporary relationship is a friendship that spans
    a long period of time, then it is possible that you will love that person.  
    I think one's emotions are basically controlled by one's subconcious;
    you either like someone or you don't.  There isn't much you can
    do to control how you feel about others; you can't will yourself
    or anyone else to fall in love/like - it just happens.  I suppose
    the only thing we can say to console ourselves of this fact is to
    try to treat everyone with equality and respect.
    
    
    

RE: .22

That is a lot in that story...                  

I've been on both sides to that situation...  After I had been on her end of the
situation, I decided that I would not ever ignore/refute/rebuff anyone ever
again...  Now, that has caused me quite a few problems, but I feel that it is
right for me. 

I don't understand what you have against "Temporary Relationships", but maybe I
have a different view of them then you.  My view, definately includes quite a
bit of giving...

Jim. 

    What happened to .22?  Someone deleted it, and the rest of this
    discussion makes no sense!
    
    Marilyn
    

    Reply 22 (and other notes throughout the conference) was deleted
    by the author.  I really wish people would not do this - it destroys
    any sort of continuity in discussions and has no effect on "saving
    disk space", as some seem to think.  Some days I wish NOTES had
    a "no delete" attribute.....
    					Steve