NOoooooooooo!!! Me, too!!!!!! There was even a rubber duckie (sent to me by her) involved. Fowl-mouthed creature - prone to swearing at times - but otherwise a nice companion to our conversations (which often lasted until the water was cold!).
I see you own k-hounds. One of my fave breed of dogs. Not very wolf-like in disposition, I'd say. They're one of the just plain sweetest breeds I've ever been around.
Those of you who would choose a "renewable contract" have already given up. It's like a computer-nerd friend said about certain programs with unresolved "bugs": "Programming for Failure," he called it.
That's what I call going into a relationship with the attitude, "Well, whatever, we'll just play it by ear and see how things go."
I don't think it's quite as simple as "Trouble sustaining a relationship" = "cheater," James. There are many reasons couples have trouble staying together. For one thing, it takes a lot of commitment and the willingness to work. Some people simply don't believe it's worth their time to put in the effort (that may or may not be at the core of it). Some desperately want to stay together but just can't find a way to resolve their differences.
If you're someone who enjoys the prospect of having a life-partner - and I'm definitely in that fold! - then you are willing to acquire the knowledge and make the effort to do what's necessary to achieve that. All you need is the willingness to commit and to roll up your sleeves and get to work. The rest will follow.
Without being willing to even try, your relationship is, of course, doomed.
"No one has the depth of such commitment"?? Where did you pull that out of - other than your own personal sentiment? Almost everyone in my family and extended family has made such a commitment, and they're doing fine. Some people are temperamentally and ethically suited for long-term relationships, some aren't. And many who give up do so simply because they lack the tools/strategies/knowledge to resolve differences that otherwise will destroy a relationship.
Right. Speaking contemptuously toward or about them to someone else (for example) is a huge predictor of relationship demise. Also, blaming them for your relationship woes tops the list. Therapist/CBT-developer David Burns (a big fave of mine!) did a study that showed "blaming the other" as the best predictor of relationship implosion.
Thanks for the Doc Emerson recommendation, Lang. I'll check it out today!
Perhaps Love Languages's most telling point for me was that though your mate does not express her love for you in ways that you recognize as love - in the ways you most crave - THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHE IN FACT DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It also works in converse: things you would only do if you'd stopped loving her does not mean that if she does those things she's stopped loving you. For example, if I didn't speak to her for weeks at a time, that would mean that I had either stopped loving her or was no longer interested. So using my behavior as a guide, I would take her silence to mean she's stopped loving me or is no longer interested. But that doesn't necessarily follow (I HOPE!!!), because I am basically an almost "compulsive communicator" - that is, I feel a power need to express myself freely and exhaustively - whereas my partner may not (and does not!) feel any such need. Still, when communication breaks down, you just never can be sure what the other person is thinking or feeling...
Well, however you define it, it certainly involves spending time with another person. Your answers, Lonely, seem to indicate a disinclination to that. Do you believe that's an accurate statement, or did the "pole" screw up in some fundamental ways?
Well, if we can tear ourselves from the momentous subject of my pole for a moment, I would like to speak of something seriously - namely, my own religious background and the effects it undoubtedly has had on my attitudes toward relationships.
Though I'm an atheist, and have been since thirteen (more or less), I was deeply influenced by my parents' and other family members' views toward relationships, which are doubtless connected to their religious faith and values (though the connection isn't always clear or even logically necessary in all cases).
For example, I believe in monogamy, commitment, and marriage. I certainly would like to believe, as a believer in logic and atheistic/humanistic philosophy, that these values are logically derived and rationally vindicated. I've certainly considered the possibility, however, that they may not be - or at least not in their entirety.
I've also noticed that I find some authors' attitudes toward marriage very convincing (for example, Harville Hendricks and Helen hunt) who are religious, and I've wondered about why these kinds of people tend to resonate with me when they speak of relationships (until they start blathering about god, of course!).
I think what draws me to them is their positivity about resolving relationship problems. They believe that relationships have a sacred aspect to them and should not be abandoned lightly - a belief which also resonates with me.
That attitude, I think, is reinforced by my personal temperament and psychological preferences - for example, I am highly discriminating about whom I fall in love with (only done it twice in my 58 years), and like to focus on individuals rather than groups - I don't have a lot of social energy - so polyamory is completely unappealing to me.
Heh. It's good to have some company, at least (but I think you hid your profile for awhile, and that might've influenced me?).
I don't find a lot to comment on regarding these scores. In some ways they all seem similar enough not to set people too much apart. The only pattern I've noticed is that people don't seem to rate "receiving gifts" and "services" very highly.
You have an interesting relationship - one which seems unusually good, Cc. I hope that continues! (And I'm envious!)
Yeah, it reminds me of those tests where some of the answers seem pretty much equal, and it just gets a tad arbitrary choosing one or the other. I think the truth is, Pan, that people are complex and not so easily pigeonholed - and some people are more complex and less pigeonholey than others.
So again, I think the important thing is identifying what things make you and your partner happy and then acting on them. Our very own Nanners is an excellent example of how that ought to be done.
I guess I would suggest to you, G, that words are in fact a form of action. It's not like any kind of physical affection could ever compensate, for instance, for being verbally abused, right?
I'm just saying that these kinds of black and white divisions - and here I'm a little critical of Graham's parsing out all these love languages as they truly are in some way independent - don't really exist.
That being said, I certainly do believe that people vary significantly in their needs for particular kinds of love-expressions. You would rather being touched and fondled and done-dirty to then be told you're nice or cute or whatever, I do understand and appreciate that.
Right now I'd happily trade complete silence for a loving touch, believe me! (And yes, at some point I WILL stop whining about it! Maybe not today...but soon.)
What if you had to choose between someone who said positive things to you but wasn't terribly physically affectionate AND someone who often said negative things but was physically affectionate (I'm guessing that either one's a deal-breaker, so not sure it really matters, but still...as a thought-experiment)?
At this point, I should add, I am so hungry for physical affection (not been touched or caressed or kissed or having slept in the arms of someone I love for many months now), that I would echo Elvis Presley: "A little less conversation, and a little more action"!! Words just aren't doing it for me right now...though some kind words I've received of late have helped.
Well, the good doctor says it's not necessary to find someone who speaks - naturally - your same languages, but someone who is WILLING to learn your language (and you must learn his as well).
Just saw this. Really, Lonely - a score of 1 for quality time. Seems like loneliness would follow logically from not wanting to spend time together, no?
Well, here's the funny and for me surprising thing about these different languages. The author of "Five Love Languages" seems to believe that having different languages need not be an obstacle at all to a great relationship - PROVIDED BOTH PARTNERS LEARN THE OTHER'S LANGUAGE!!
I'm not sure if that's true. I'm fairly sure that having different love languages is not ideal, but it may not amount to much of an obstacle if both partners make the attempt to satisfy the other. I think the most important factor is wanting to do that. If you aren't willing to roll up your sleeves and "get busy" - as Nance obviously is, may Zeus bless her - then that no doubt is the most important predictor of relationship success.
In your case, your marriage might've blossomed into love if you both had been able to communicate your needs - what fills your love-tank - and worked on doing that, C.
What language of love do you speak?
Were you expecting something different?