Conference quark::human_relations

    YES, 
    if their LOVE is more important than their politics... but in today's
    world this hardly happens...
    
    Ana

    Looks like it.  Maria Schriver and Arnold Schwartzenegger seem to be 
    doing okay, as are Mary Matalin and her (new) spouse (James Carvel(?)).

    One definition of leadership is the ability to find issues which tend
    to bring people together, rather than those which tend to polarize
    them.
    
    The Reagan era rewarded so-called leaders who promoted issues like flag-
    burning which drove wedges between people instead of issues which
    would unify our society.
    
    A real leader can command respect from those who disagree with
    particular positions or views held.  A real leader understands that
    not everyone has the same point of view, and has a degree of
    sensitivity about our differences.
    
    In a personal relationship, I'd have no problem whatsoever with someone
    I disagreed with on political issues, if they possess certain leadership
    qualities which command my respect.
    
    -rich 
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR1-3/O13    DTN:  237-2124
    Work: [email protected]                      508-841-2124
    Home: [email protected]

    When you go into vote you are by yourself and it's supposed to be
    private. You can vote for who you want to. You have choices and it
    shouldn't be an issue. It's called freedom to do what you think is
    right.
      
    
    Just don't discuss politics or religion and you'll be alright.
    
    Now if you fight about it all the time...that's a different story.

    It is quite difficult to imagine that a couple not discuss
    their 'views' on political issues and be living together.
    
    It is even more difficult to find a happy relationship between
    two individuals, whose views, say for instance, on abortion, are
    fundamentally opposed.

    re .6, still chemistry and physical attraction do not always follow
    political guidelines.
    
    I think it depends on the pros and cons of the relationship, as a
    whole, and not just on political views.
    
    Also, to some people it may be very important that their SO agree with
    them on such issues as abortion, gun control, national health
    insurance, etc., whereas, other people may be able to overlook these
    differences of opinion, if they feel the relationship, overall, has a
    lot to offer.
    
    Lorna
     

    
    Political differences aren't necessarily a negative.  If you like to
    debate, it may be nice to have an SO that can argue the other side
    convincingly, particularly if your underlying values are basically the
    same.  Major political differences can represent major value
    differences or minor differences of opinion or approach.
    
    	Sharon
    
     

>    re .6, still chemistry and physical attraction do not always follow
>    political guidelines.


True.  But it's also true that a person can not have a successful long-term 
relationship built on chemistry and physical attraction.

If we base our commitments on how hot we are for someone, we are dooming our
relationship to failure.  Guarenteed.

kathy

>    re .6, still chemistry and physical attraction do not always follow
>    political guidelines.

    
    Horneyness ( a real word? ) never follows political guidelines.
    A relationship is based on more lasting attributes.
    
    /Bob
    

    re .9, I'm not sure I agree with you.  All things considered, I think a
    relationship based on chemistry and physical attraction has just as
    much chance of turning into a successful, long-term relationship as one
    built on anything else - such as common hobbies, or religious or
    political beliefs.  The main thing is that the two people have to have
    *something* that makes them want to stay together.  I'm not so sure it
    makes much difference what that is.   I don't think there are any set
    rules for what makes two people want to spend a large percentage of
    their lives together.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .10, In my experience hornyness *does* sometimes follow political
    guidelines.  I've been extremely physically attracted to at least three
    men whose political beliefs coincided very closely with mine.
    
    The ones that surprise me have been the times I've found myself feeling
    attracted to people whose beliefs are quite different.  But, I know
    from experience it can happen.
    
    Lorna
    
    

>                             -< sometimes it does >-

>    re .10, In my experience hornyness *does* sometimes follow political
>   guidelines.  I've been extremely physically attracted to at least three
>   men whose political beliefs coincided very closely with mine.
    
Okay, I'll accept that a person can be intrigued with another's political
point of view. Is that the *cause* of the sexual interest? Or, was
the sexual interest already present, and knowledge of their politics
came after the fact? 

    I contend that hornyness preceeds knowledge of another's politics,
    and is based on physical perceptions. Once the politics are known,
    one can either enjoy the carnal moment or be turned off. 
    
    I also feel that a relationship based on physical criteria lasts only as
    long as that criteria. Relationhips based on mental compatibility
    outlast our physical attributes.
    
    /Bob

    re .13, but some people stay good looking for a long time.  For
    example, if a woman had fallen in love with David Bowie, when he was
    20, just because he was cute, she'd probably still be in love with him
    because he's still cute today, even though he's in his late 40's.  :-)
    
    Just kidding.  I know what you're saying.
    
    I think that most relationships don't last forever these days, anyway,
    though, and that when two people enter into a relationship there is no
    real way of predicting what is going to happen a few years down the
    road.  So, if you meet somebody that you like, and it's mutual, go for
    it, regardless of what the main draw is, because if nothing else you
    may get a couple of good years and that's worth something.  As Robbie
    Robertson (another still attractive middle-aged man) says in his song,
    "What About Now" - "We don't talk about forever
                        WE just catch it while we can
                        And if I grab onto the moment
                        Don't let it slip away out of my hand
    
                        What about now
                        Forget about tomorrow
                        It's too far away"  
    
    It's a good song.
    
    
    Lorna
    

>If we base our commitments on how hot we are for someone, we are dooming our
>relationship to failure.  Guarenteed.


    	I'd pretty much have to agree with this.  Successful relationships
    can start out based on chemistry, but it's my contention that if they
    are successful they will eventually be *based* on other things.
    (There's a big difference between being interested initially in someone
    because of chemistry and basing the entire relationship on said
    chemistry.)


>    re .9, I'm not sure I agree with you.  All things considered, I think a
>    relationship based on chemistry and physical attraction has just as
>    much chance of turning into a successful, long-term relationship as one
>    built on anything else - such as common hobbies, or religious or
>    political beliefs.  The main thing is that the two people have to have
>    *something* that makes them want to stay together.  I'm not so sure it
>    makes much difference what that is.   I don't think there are any set
>    rules for what makes two people want to spend a large percentage of
>    their lives together.


    	I really don't think so.  A relationship *based* solely on
    chemistry doesn't have much of a chance.  I've seen relationships like
    this burn very hot and fast at the beginning, but they fade very
    quickly.  That's because a relationship based on superficials is itself
    quite superficial.  For a relationship to last, it must be built on
    solid, lasting qualities such as mutual respect, caring, equality,
    shared philosophies and goals in life, and a desire to make it work.
    There are so many variables in this equation that even if all these
    ingredients are present it still might not work (for reasons such as,
    are both parties *ready*).  However, a relationship based on this last
    set of criteria stands a much better chance in my book.



    Brian
    

    re .15, you're assuming that the *goal* of all relationships is that
    they last for a long time, or "forever."  But, maybe that isn't the
    goal of everyone who begins a relationship.  Maybe some people are just
    interested in having a pleasant time for as long as it lasts.  I'm not
    saying that I, personally, feel that way, but I just wanted to mention
    it.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .15
    
    Brian, your words show you like deep or serious committments, I am
    with you.  Politics has very little to do with love. Relationships
    based in physical attraction are just that, physical, and thus, as
    short as the physical attributes lasts and at times dies way before
    that. Politics lasts even shorter! there are changes by the minute!
    
    With good, long-lasting, and REAL love you can laugh at physical
    attributes, and at politics as well, and have a great time at it!
    politics can nurture a good conversation, can be a good theme of
    disertation, but without love (and the understanding and security of
    being appreciated and understood) it could also lead into conflict.
    
    Ana
    

I agree with the message of the -1, but I disagree that "politics keeps
changing".

It all depends what you mean by political. Many people have strongly held
beliefs that define who they are and how they live. They can be defensive or
(apparently) irrational when they deal with someone who holds a conflicting view
that defines his or her life in the same way. And many such views line up with
those of a political party. For example, people opposed to abortion may well
vote for or campaign for a Republican for that reason. People opposed to nuclear
weapons used to support Labour in the UK purely for that reason.

But on the whole, I'd say, these sorts of views are not political. They are an
expression of an individual's sense of identity. Sometimes people take an
extreme position in order to define themselves strongly because they are unsure
of who they really are. Moreover, people often take up these positions in
conversations in order to assert a relationship of power with the other
person--to feel there is an area in which the other person cannot control them.
And this can get masochistic....

So if you argue about politics, it could be because your relationship has got
into a confrontational rut. Maybe one or both of you feel overwhelmed by the
other, and politics is the subject matter that is really important enough to
assert yourself in.

I wouldn't rule it out, though, that someone who gets into this sort of argument
could become more confident and reflective through a loving relationship. It's
possible that her or his views have a core of truth. And idealism can be
attractive and lovable. You've got to work out what is good in your and the
other person's position, and respect it.

From personal experience, I'd also say that people who have political views and
are active in politics can have better relationships than the apolitical. My
closest friends come from different political parties and none, but they all
enjoy political discussions, and some of them are happily but noisily married to
each other. I can certainly understand Mary Matalin and John Carvel getting
together. (Though his underpants might have turned her off....)

But these relationships are often radically different from those between people
who don't have strong political views. The people involved develop their
relationships through ideas and campaigns as well as through their home and
social life. They often have very intense friendships and working relationships
with people who are not their partners, and they provide leadership in areas in
which they are active. I'm not just talking about Bill and Hill here, though
they seem to me to be a good example. (I would guess that they disagree on some
key issues, as she's far more radical than he is.)

I suppose the conclusion I would draw from all this is, if politics is so
important to you, do it for real, don't try to do it in your relationships. 


Helen

	The following reply is being posted anonymously. You may contact the
author by mail, by sending your communication to me and I'll be glad to forward 
it on. Your message will be forwarded with your name attached, unless you 
request otherwise.

	Joe
				*	*	*


    I am the basenoter, and I thought I'd get back in here and let you
    know what my own experience has been over the past 1+ years. 

    I've had two short-lived relationships with persons who were of
    vastly-different political beliefs than I.  In the first case, the
    reason for the base topic, we avoided the issue.  We broke up after
    eight months because what little chemistry there was just died off.  We
    had lots of fun together, however, as friends, but I wanted to find a
    situation with far more emotional involvement.

    In the second case, the other party kept bringing up political
    issues, and of course the squabbling would break out. 
    Notwithstanding the occasional disagreements, that relationship
    was very warm and loving and satisfying to me; however, the other
    party claimed not to be able to overlook the political differences
    (I, on the other hand, could), so we ended the relationship after
    five months.  I believe the other party had a self-image problem
    and may have subconsciously focused on this negative of the
    relationship, lobbing grenades into it in the form of heated
    political discussions.  This other party also was experiencing a
    divorce, was having difficulty finding employment after having
    just graduated from college, and had a long history of psychiatric
    care for clinical depression complete with a prescription for
    Prozac.  A couple of months before we broke up, that person
    decided to stop taking the prescription, and that person also had
    ceased getting professional help.  Perhaps the political
    disagreements provided more of a catalyst than a cause for the
    breakup.

    I had the beginnings of a relationship with a person who agreed
    with me on all today's hot issues, and I also felt some pretty
    serious chemistry.  The combination of the two traits was
    irresistible.  However, that person found a mate who was more
    suitable, so it didn't develop into anything.  That was a tough
    loss because everything was there.  But at least now I know what
    the benchmark is.  :-)

    I was going to conclude with some words to summarize and to answer
    my own question in .0, but I'll be damned if I can come up with
    anything more intelligent-sounding than, "It depends."  

    Thanks for all the replies!

    
    	One suggestion,
    
    	You might try to explore the connection - for yourself - between
    the experience of feeling a relationship is "very warm and loving and 
    satisfying" - and the other person in it being full of their own
    difficulties around grief and loss, a depressive personality and
    possibly a saboteur of their own wellbeing. It certainly sounds like 
    they are a saboteur of their relationships.
    
    	Exploring and understanding something like that, to me, eclipses
    any interest in "politics". It's like who _gives a sh*t_ what's going 
    on at the level of 'government and world agenda', when you dont yet
    understand what's going on at the level of your own psychology! I
    believe such an interest in things so far outside and removed from what's
    going on with your own self can be used as an avoidance mechanism for
    ever looking at it. 
    
    	Not to say this is what's happening with you; only to suggest, now
    that you're in a free space, to perhaps take a look at it. I saw it
    immediately, the connection - it was like 'whoa!'. Anyway, I hope this
    helps you in some small way.
    
    	Joe