| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1286.1 | Not to be too harsh on the young dad, but... | IMTDEV::BRUNO | Father Gregory | Tue Jul 14 1992 11:03 | 18 |
|
He seems to be suffering from a very common malady: immaturity.
It appears that you have a choice: tell him that you are not happy
with his double standards and risk losing him OR accept his treatment
and hang on to him as long as he wishes to stay with you.
Remember, there are people who will test you to see how much they can
get away with. If they see that you are "taking it", they may go a bit
further.
At this point, he seems to believe that you need him more than he needs
you. If this is not quickly corrected, you may be headed toward a very
unsatisfactory future.
Good luck to you. Just by reading the basenote, I can tell that he is
getting the better deal in this relationship.
Greg
|
| 1286.2 | We all have "heart conditions." | WLDWST::WARD_FR | Seeking more mystical adventure | Tue Jul 14 1992 11:43 | 45 |
| re: .0
Unconditional love exists, but mostly as an ideal (for us.)
It is very unlikely that anyone you know is unconditionally loving.
While they may behave unconditionally loving at certain times/places
they are *not* unconditionally loving individuals. Why? Because
human beings require a "great deal of work" in order to reach a
status that would be called "unconditionally loving." As I say,
there are moments when we love unconditionally, but more as a
state of action than a state of being.
For example, how many people do you know who will love someone
who don't expect something in return? Don't we all expect something?
Not just desire or want something but actually expect or even
demand something? Even in your situation there is an attempt to
practice unconditional love (which is admirable) but there is
massive disappointment because it isn't mutually given. The
disappointment is a result of the CONDITION you have placed on your
love. That is, you are in effect saying "I love you unconditionally,
you aren't loving me unconditionally; therefore, I am hurt and
disappointed...and, eventually, I will stop loving you
unconditionally." That is conditional love, although there may
well have been moments of unconditional love within it.
Unconditional love is not contingency-bound. It is freely given
and not constrained in any way.
Unconditional love is a synergy of love that is, as a state of
being, only available to self-realized individuals. Self-realization
leads to unconditional love. In the beauty of your youth (21 is
"youth" to me ;-} ) it is highly improbable that you or anyone
that age is "self-realized." But don't feel alone, very few, if
any, grown-ups ever reach self-realization. Most people live their
entire lives without much of a clue as to what self-realization is.
Therefore, most people never really experience the beingness of
unconditional love.
It is more important, I think, to consider unconditional love
as an ideal, as a concept to work towards, and to ADMIT the
conditions of love that we have. Understand what your conditions are
and accept them or work to change them. Non-attachment can come
with a greater sense of responsibility (a paradox.) Be responsible
for your love, for the impact of your love. Allow the impact of the
love you receive to change you, to help you grow. Don't place demands
on your love...and understand that others are not likely to be coming
from a place of "perfect" love (i.e., unconditional love.)
Frederick
|
| 1286.3 | | ROYALT::NIKOLOFF | New Jersey Works | Tue Jul 14 1992 13:40 | 8 |
| -< We all have "heart conditions." >-
re.-1 That was well written, and well thought-out.
thank you, Freddie
8-)
|
| 1286.4 | | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | This time forever! | Tue Jul 14 1992 14:46 | 37 |
|
One item in your note caught my eye -
>He is trying to find his real parents.
If he was orphaned as a child, he very likely has "abandonment
issues". These are extremely painful for him to feel. Whenever something
"sounds" like abandonment or "looks" like abandonment, he's going
to feel a little bit of his original abandonment. And that hurts!
This translates into "you going out looks like you're leaving
him" and "you with a male friend sounds like you could 'leave him'
that way". The irony of it is (and this is what I believe is confusing
to you) is that his sensitivity to these situations probably has
a lot more to do with his "real parents" leaving him than it does
with the actual chance *you'd* take off on him - one way or another.
It is not your responsibility to make this okay for him. He
owns his issue with his real parents and needs to do the work necessary
to bring that to a healthy resolution. However, by knowing a bit
about how this works, you can be sensitive and caring toward him
and his feelings. You can gently explain that your going out carries
with it no risk that you'll leave him and you can tell him you love
him - but do need some time to yourself every once in a while. You
can also encourage him to get help in working through his feelings
that he holds over his original abandonment issue with his "real
parents".
A decision he needs to make is over working through his feelings
- preferrably in therapy and/or group therapy setting - or not.
If he decides to go for it, I'd definitely recommend that you stick
with him, because when he's got some of that work done, most of
this stuff will no longer be such an acute problem for the two of you.
Hope this helps,
Joe
|
| 1286.6 | Not "I'll love you if you do X" | TLE::JBISHOP | | Tue Jul 14 1992 16:11 | 16 |
| I thought unconditional love meant something like this:
I love you, and will continue to love you no
matter what--my love is not conditional on your
doing what I ask nor on being "good". But I
don't promise to always like what you do, nor
to give in to all your desires--the fact that I
love you doesn't give you a blank check.
I've read of this as an appropriate attitude to have to
children: they should never feel that a parent will only
love them if they are good, but they should also know that
breaking the rules brings consequences, and that some
requests will be refused.
-John Bishop
|
| 1286.7 | No double standards in my book! | MR4DEC::LSIGEL | There were clouds in my coffee | Tue Jul 14 1992 16:43 | 3 |
| Tell him what is good for the goose is good for the ol' gander. I dont
beleive in the double standard stuff, if he can go out with this
freinds , so can YOU!
|
| 1286.8 | not 21 | DNEAST::HEBERT_SANDR | | Wed Jul 15 1992 02:44 | 3 |
| re: .2
i am 25 he is 21.
sandy
|
| 1286.9 | Best of all worlds... | WLDWST::WARD_FR | Seeking more mystical adventure | Wed Jul 15 1992 11:32 | 7 |
| re: .8 (Sandy)
Well, then, "young" and maybe "youthful," but clearly no longer
"youth," then. ;-)
Frederick
|
| 1286.10 | he is just a kid... | MR4DEC::MAHONEY | | Wed Jul 15 1992 11:49 | 10 |
| He is just a kid playing the adult role...! 21 years old with a 2 year
old kid means he's been sleeping around for quite a while... looking
for confort, security, love, or whatever attachment he might find, he
sounds awfully immature and insecure to me.
He has a lot of growing up to do and he obviously needs some breathing
space to achieve it... (thus his wish to be alone)...
It might not make sense to some, but it makes lots of sense to me.
Best wishes,
|
| 1286.11 | | SENIOR::JANDROW | The Green-Eyed Lady | Wed Jul 15 1992 16:05 | 7 |
|
Re: .10
Don't make snap judgements about 21 year olds with children.........
|
| 1286.12 | ??? | MR4DEC::MAHONEY | | Thu Jul 16 1992 13:58 | 12 |
| re: .10. Please don't pluralize, I do NOT make snaps judgements about
21 year OLDS but about ONE specific 21 year old, subject of this note.
Are you talking about another subject?
There must be millions and millions of 21 year olds with children in
the world, but that is not the subject here. I hope this is clear.
(my own mother married at 18 and had TWO children by age 21, but what does
nothing do with this note, I hope?)
Ana
|
| 1286.13 | | QUIVER::STEFANI | Stay within the lines, stay within the lines | Thu Jul 16 1992 20:57 | 11 |
| re: last few
[From .10]
"21 years old with a 2 year old kid means he's been sleeping around for
quite a while..."
...sounds like a generalization to me. Can't a "21 years old with a 2
year old kid" mean something else (other than him "sleeping around")?
- Larry
|
| 1286.14 | | SENIOR::JANDROW | The Green-Eyed Lady | Fri Jul 17 1992 08:39 | 6 |
|
.13
Thank you............
|
| 1286.15 | | FUTURS::ELLIOT | learning to fly | Fri Jul 17 1992 09:46 | 9 |
|
> re: .10. Please don't pluralize, I do NOT make snaps judgements about
> 21 year OLDS but about ONE specific 21 year old, subject of this note.
Well, even if it wasn't meant as a generalisation (although it read
that way), I can't see anything in the basenote to justify jumping to
conclusions about this particular 21 year old, either.
June.
|