Conference turris::womannotes-v3

494.0. "Control Theory" by IE0010::MALING (Life is a balancing act) Tue Oct 30 1990 13:41

    The subject of control in relationships was brought up in the Cycles of
    Abuse topic (462.74) and it's a subject I've been doing a lot of
    thinking about.  I'd be interested to hear what others think about the
    subject.  Here's my theory.
    
    Mary
    
    There's this game people play called "Control or Be Controlled".  A game
    consists of two players -- one playing the role of controller; the other
    playing the role of controlled.  The players fall into three categories.

        Type N always wants to be the controller.

        Type S always wants to be the controlled.

        Type R will play either role, but tends to prefer one or the other.

    N's and S's are attracted to each other like the North and South poles of
    a magnet.  It's a marriage made in heaven.  On the other hand, N's refuse
    to play with other N's and their repulsion for each other is quite
    violent.  S's won't play with other S's either. They keep expecting the
    other S to take control, which he never does, so the game never gets
    going.  R's will play with anyone since they are capable of reversing
    their polarity.  However, once engaged in a game they may not reverse
    polarity or the game is over.

    The problem is that S's (and R's playing the S role) sometimes get
    uppity.  They decide they don't like being controlled.  "I'm mad as hell
    and I'm not going to take it anymore."   So they try to reverse polarity
    in mid game and all hell breaks loose.  The N doesn't like being
    controlled either, so when an S gets uppity the N usually quits the game
    or at least threatens to.  "I'm not going to play with YOU anymore."  The
    N can easily find another S to play with, but the uppity S is in trouble. 
    He is usually very inexperienced at playing the N role and so screws it
    up badly.  He doesn't want to go back to being an S because that's no
    fun.  If he's lucky, he will discover that there's another game in town.

    That game is called "Don't Control and Don't Be Controlled" also known as
    "NOT (Control or Be Controlled)".  This game has only one role and one
    type of player, type O, the elusive magnetic monopole.  O's are very
    incestuous because they can only play with other O's.  N's won't play
    with them because O's won't be controlled.  S's won't play with them
    because O's won't control.  R's will try to play with O's, but become
    frustrated because they can't figure out what role the O is playing; the
    O appears to be reversing polarity in mid game.

    "Don't Control and Don't Be Controlled" tends to be a stable game because
    there are no losers, only winners.  Everyone is an O; everyone is equal.
    The only danger is that an O may revert to playing "Control or Be
    Controlled".  Unfortunately, due to the incestuous nature of O's, most
    N's, S's and R's never discover the other game.

	I've been thinking of starting a similar note.  Great minds
	must think alike, eh?  (Not to mention being named alike!)

	A friend's therapist claims that there are two basic areas
	of control in a relationship,  money & sex.  And that in 
	a 'healthy' relationship, one partner controls one & the
	other the other, if you follow.

	For example, the partner with the lower sex-drive controls
	how often the partners have sex, (by agreeing or not when
	s/he is not really interested, but the other is.)

	And one partner usually dominates any decision about money.

	And in the 'old days', the woman controled sex by giving/
	withholding her 'favors' until the man proposed/ gave her
	a present/ bought the new refrigerator/ etc. But in today's
	society, with the woman being capable of supporting herself,
	this balance is threatened.

	Now, I'd like to think this is all crap.  But it does seem
	to describe lots of relationships I know, (though the sex's
	are often switched!)  Any thoughts?

	
	RE: .0

	It seems to me that you've described a fairly complete theory
	of control.  And I think that it does happen that way. It's not
	necisarily bad, since there are some strong relationships that
	work that way for years. (the problem arising when one side
	decides to change.)

	mary

    I don't think its limited sex and money.  Control is at work in all
    kinds of relationships -- friendships, parent/child, boss/employee,
    coworkers...
    
    The "reward" used to control someone may be sex or money, but could
    also be intimacy, approval, attention or even food, basically anything
    that is desired or needed by the person to be controlled.
    
    One effective method of control is control through guilt or shame.
    
    Mary

    .3>	Is this an implication of maleness, or a general "he"?
    
    Its a general "he" meaning "he or she".  The base note is something I
    wrote down a few months ago after observing interpersonal dynamics in
    the group I work in.  I observed male/male, female/female and
    male/female relationships and I did not notice any preference for one
    role or another based on sex.
    
    Mary

    Control is an illusion.
    
    Nobody really controls anybody.
    
    -roger
    

    Funny thing is so often the N's become attached to the N's. They find
    each other to be a challenge. Results are catastophic.
    
    
    Kate

    .6> Control is an illusion.
    .6> Nobody really controls anybody.
    
    Excuse me.  If I'm walking down the street in Boston and somone sticks
    a gun in my gut and says "Give me your wallet", I suppose I'm free to
    make my own choice, but it sure feels like I'm being controlled.
    
    Mary