On "Fishing"... Do You Want What You Get or Get What You Want?

"Come follow me," Jesus said, "And I will make you fishers of men." Matthew 4:19

In my late teens, this was one of my favorite verses from the Bible. I liked men and I liked to fish, so it was an easy metaphor for me to grasp. At one point I began to think I would lure men in with my body and then talk to them about God, if they didn't already know about Him. I found out through my Senior High drama class that back massages and foot massages could go a long way towards breaking down barriers as well. So besides being "That Girl on the Bicycle" I became the Christian girl who would "give a massage with a message"... much to many a young man's confusion and I suspect frustration, as that was all I would do...at that point in my life anyway.

I entered college a year younger than most everyone else, at 17 rather than 18 (because, thanks to my mother's insistence with the school board back in Radcliff, KY, I ended up skipping sixth grade). Granted, I'd spent most of those first 18+ years "hiding out" with Mom, rather than having much in the way of normal peer to peer interactions, so, really I'd say I was more like a 12-year-old emotionally.

It wasn't until much later in life that I realized how my naivete' was a big part of my appeal to men. I'm not sure if I were more or less needy than most women, having never had the validation of my father in my life, but I kept much of that well hidden with my verbosity and intellectual confidence. Inevitably though, via that combination of my still youthful naivete' and neediness, I cast a rather broad net into the world of men, and, sure enough, I caught a few "fish" here and there.

The reverse was also true. There were men around who were doing basically the same thing, unconsciously putting out their nets into which naive women like myself would be "drawn in". In the long run, there was probably a fairly equal amount of "tossing back" or "rejection" from me and from them as we were all trying to figure out what we wanted based on what we could get or "catch" in those unconscious nets.

As I have discussed on this blog before, one of the ways we "net" each other is with anima and animus "projections". I'd offer that another way is much more primal, mostly involving women making themselves more visually attractive and/or erotically stimulating for men. Some women are more adept at this than others, and/or are born with certain physical traits that lend themselves more naturally to that kind of appeal. Others can afford lots of plastic surgery to re-create themselves to fit current cultural "norms", or at least what they think others see as "sexy".

In his many books on relations between men and women, David Deida describes a woman's "feminine radiance" as a unique spiritual gift that she has to offer to men and the world. However, he also makes a distinction between developing that on a purely physical, superficial level and having it literally "radiate" from the core of her being.

To illustrate the polarity between men and women, Deida points to the typical football game with its very focused, goal oriented, and freedom oriented men (as in "breaking free" into the end zone) playing the game, while the (mostly) female cheerleaders play a more supportive role on the sidelines, being Especially Radiant while doing so! While underway with the USS George Washington during football season, we were visited by the Washington Redskins Cheerleaders. Informed by Deida's ideas, it became very obvious to me, seeing the cheerleaders on and off stage, just how good they were at turning their radiance "On" and "Off" as well.

And then I had the opportunity to watch a season of "America's Next Top Model" when it first came out. Given that all of these women were physically attractive, some of them in unique ways, it came as somewhat of a surprise to me that what the judges and producers really wanted to see was their range of emotional expression and how well they could communicate that through their faces and bodies.

Another time when I was underway with the USS George Washington, I saw the movie, Dangerous Beauty which has since become one of my all-time favorites. It's based on the true story of Veronica Franco a courtesan in Venice in the 1500's. As part of her "training" her mother challenges her to consciously embody a range of emotions - from anger and disdain to submission, rapture, and finally - to make her lover believe that "he is the only man in the universe".

For all of the implication that women have been "subordinated" by men throughout history, I am going to propose, that we have also held great power as well. I think many women are just as guilty of abusing their power(s) as men have ever been. In general, men may hold sway over much of our physical world, but women have always had the greater power over the emotional side of life, and I dare say we deny that at our own peril. (And before anyone gets too upset about these generalizations - let me acknowledge that I realize that is what they are and that there are always going to be exceptions within and across genders.)

I would like to offer that "net casting" is probably very deep programming for all concerned. Every species looks for a way to attract a mate, and each individual in that species will employ those devices with greater or lessor success, with that "success" measured in terms of the number of offspring they are ultimately able to procreate.

However, as I suggested in my previous post, there is much more going on for human beings than just "reproduction" of the species. Consequently, if we keep using tools evolved primarily for finding mates for reproduction, when reproducing is not, or is no longer what is most important to us, then it is no wonder we keep finding ourselves in trouble, struggling to find more overall satisfaction in our relationships. Maybe its time we come up with some better methods of finding people we want to be relating with for those other reasons? In other words, the "casting a net" approach isn't really the most effective for most of us human beings in this more complex, modern world.

From my own point of view, it's no longer about what I can catch in my "net" by "chance"; it's also not about letting myself be "drawn into" someone else's "net" when they are not really clear about what they want. It's about knowing very clearly what I actually want, and keeping my mind and heart open to meeting someone who a) also knows very clearly what they want, b) doesn't need a lot of "woo/woo emotional/biochemical stimulation" to get them to pay attention, and c) actually wants the same most important things in a relationship that I want. (In other words, it does not have to be a "perfect match", but we should be able to share many of the things that are most meaningful to both of us.)

Keep in mind, for any individual to figure out what is most meaningful for them requires what I call "homework." If you're too busy just letting your more lowly evolved (limbic brain) biology (unconsciously) cast nets everywhere "looking for love", you're probably not going to have the time, nor the mental energy to do that "What's really most meaningful to me?" homework. It's also highly unlikely that you're ever going to have the presence of mind to engage a potential partner in dialogue to find out what is most meaningful to them. Therefore, there's basically no way to get to that place of sharing what is mutually meaningful without self-knowledge and without knowledge of the other person as well, far more knowledge than anyone might gain from a "first impression", or "love a first sight"!

As one of my favorite authors on the subject of relationships,Terry Gorski puts it: "Most relationships fail due to selection errors." As I have suggested repeatedly in posts throughout this Blue Moon Turtle Blog: I'm convinced there are better ways to "select" our friends and our intimate partners, to satisfy the total complex of our human nature, rather than just the biological aspect of it.

For instance:

1) Figure out what is most meaningful to you and to your potential partner, and see if these things intersect.

2) Beware of emotional/biochemical addictions to experiences like falling in love.

3) Understand the limits of intuition, and back it up with what Gorski calls a "rational basis of trust" born of actual experiential knowledge of the other person over a fairly long period of time and in multiple circumstances.

4) Know your own anima or animus, and be as conscious as you possibly can be so as to minimize if not altogether eliminate your tendency to "project" onto others.

5) Be careful misinterpreting basic biological/emotional-biochemical experiences masquerading as something "higher" or "more spiritual."

And, lastly (for now),

6) Be aware of your tendency to a) not be completely clear about what you actually want in a relationship, and b) unconsciously "casting your net" merely to see who you can catch, and how you might control them, rather than being more sensitive to the humanity of the other person and their need to be treated with empathy and respect.

Granted, if we never learn to approach these most challenging of human relationships more consciously, and we simply continue to allow our lower biology, our limbic brains, to keep running the show, we will, nevertheless, continue to produce more human beings. My contention is that we will not be producing happy, peaceful, well-adjusted human beings, nor will we ultimately produce a happy, peaceful, well-adjusted and sustainable society. We're only going to "get what we get" - but not necessarily get what we really want.

The Role of Faith in Life and Love

I'm feeling excited today, the day after Valentine's Day. I took the day "off" yesterday, resting my legs as I've been on my bicycle for most days over the last month, and I needed the rest...but my mind and heart were still "busy".

During the course of my consideration of "Love as Effort", I shared the basic ideas with my friend, Ben Ralston. With regards to being willing to make the effort involved with "self-love", to be willing to do the "work" of self-understanding, etc., he responded as follows:

"I think there's a conundrum/paradox there, too. In order to make the effort towards working through our 'stuff' (so that we can be love and experience the peace you mention) there must be a certain amount of self-love, right? So what comes first, chicken or egg?"

Yesterday, I think I got the best "answer" I've had so far, and, again it is going to challenge some widely held beliefs.

First of all, even I have been tuned-in to and aware of the idea that "Love is the opposite of fear." Ben's video a while back about "How to Be Love" really spoke to that in me, as that is how I have been oriented in my own life for a long time now. However, other personal experiences at the time were beginning to challenge this idea, and those challenges eventually brought me to the conclusion that "Love" actually feels like Effort (the subject of the blog linked above). Nevertheless, I had to take seriously his question, "Which comes first?"

As I have continued to feel into and think about this, I have come to the following intuition/feeling/theory: Faith is what is necessary before we are willing to expend the Effort of Love. Faith may be naive or it may be rational, with the latter being the more mature and conscious of the two. Rational Faith takes Evidence into consideration, objective data, which is not always easy to obtain, especially where "projections" (of shadow, anima, and/or animus) are concerned.

Recall from this blog for instance:

"The anima not only interferes with a man's emotional reactions, she can interfere with his thinking as well.  For instance, when a man is anima-possessed he may begin to give forth opinions instead of genuine thinking.  It is as though the anima begins to talk right through him, and she expresses herself as though she had an animus, which means she expresses opinions without regard to facts, relationship, or logic.  When a man is in this state of mind he begins to argue in a peevish way, and his masculine objectivity is quite lost in a sea of emotionally toned and irrational opinions that prove resistant to reasonable discussion...

In summary, Sanford offers: "...[T]he anima can poison a man's consciousness and rob him of himself should he fall for her insinuations...a man can prevent the negative anima from having this destructive influence on him...by making her conscious." (Invisible Partners...Pp. 35-43).

However, once one becomes more "self-aware" by integrating shadow, anima and/or animus, one can also be more Objective in one's observations, and therefore more capable of Rational Faith - which can be an amazingly strong foundation for the Will to Love, the Desire to Expend energy on behalf of oneself, others, and the benefit of the World.

As Erich Fromm writes in The Art of Loving:

"The ability to love depends on one's capacity to emerge from narcissism, and from the incestuous fixation to mother and clan; it depends on our capacity to grow, to develop a productive orientation in our relationship toward the world and ourselves. This process of emergence, of birth, of waking up, requires one quality as a necessary condition: faith. The practice of the art of loving requires the practice of faith.

"What is faith? Is faith necessarily a matter of belief in God, or in religious doctrine? Is faith by necessity in contrast to, or divorced from, reason and rational thinking? Even to begin to understand the problem of faith one must differentiate between rational and irrational faith. By irrational faith I understand the belief (in a person or an idea) which is based on one's submission to irrational authority. In contrast, rational faith is conviction which is rooted in one's own experience of thought or feeling. Rational faith is not primarily belief in something, but the quality of certainty and firmness which our convictions have. Faith is a character trait pervading the whole personality, rather than a specific belief.

"Rational faith is rooted in productive intellectual and emotional activity. In rational thinking, in which faith is supposed to have no place, rational faith is an important component. How does the scientist, for instance, arrive at a new discovery? Does he start with making experiment after experiment, gathering fact after fact, without having a vision of what he expects to find?....

"....At every step from the conception of a rational vision to the formulation of a theory, faith is necessary: faith in the vision as a rationally valid aim to pursue, faith in the hypothesis as a likely and plausible proposition, and faith in the final theory, at least until a general consensus about its validity has been reached. This faith is rooted in one's own experience, in the confidence in one's power of thought, observation, and judgment. While irrational faith is the acceptance of something as true only because an authority [and don't forget parents in this category] or the majority say so, rational faith is rooted in an independent conviction based upon one's own productive observing and thinking, in spite of the majority's opinion.

"Thought and judgment are not the only realm of experience in which rational faith is manifested. In the sphere of human relations, faith is an indispensable quality of any significant friendship or love. 'Having faith' in another person means to be certain of the reliability and unchangeability of his fundamental attitudes, of the core of his personality, of his love. By this I do not mean that a person may not change his opinions, but that his basic motivations remain the same; that, for instance, his respect for life and human dignity is part of himself, not subject to change.

"In the same sense we have faith in ourselves. We are aware of the existence of a self, of a core in our personality which is unchangeable and which persists throughout our life in spite of varying circumstances, and regardless of certain changes in opinions and feelings. It is this core which is the reality behind the word 'I', and on which our conviction of our own identity is based. Unless we have faith in the persistence of our self, our feeling of identity is threatened and we become dependent on other people whose approval then becomes the basis for our feeling of identity. Only the person who has faith in himself is able to be faithful to others, because only he can be sure that he will be the same at a future time as he is today, and therefore, that he will feel and act as he now expects to. Faith in oneself is a condition of our ability to promise, and since, as Nietzsche said, man can be defined by his capacity to promise, faith is one of the conditions of human existence. What matters in relation to love is the faith in one's own love; in its ability to produce love in others, and in its reliability." (Pp.112-114)

As, I have pointed out in the last blog, where "Love = Effort", one must have faith in one's capacity to exert effort in relationship to what one intends, what one "promises", and one must be pretty self-aware to know one's capacities and limitations, so as not to promise something one cannot give. At the same time, becoming self-aware often involves pushing oneself beyond one's limits in order to have a better sense of what those limits actually are. As an example, I know my plans for my bike trip have taken many twists and turns in the details, but I was able to stick to the "major objective" and reaching that objective (by completing my bike trip this summer) is still my "intention" and therefore, my "promise" to myself and others. I still have "faith" in myself and "faith" in the support of others as they have been supporting me from the beginning, and therefore, I am continuing to "make the effort" to reach that final goal.

I would also offer, however, that faith does play a major role in our willingness to persist in a relationship. Everyone comes into their relationships with a certain "vision" of how that relationship might evolve, what is potential in that relationship, and our expectations may be more or less appropriate. As I have pointed out in several previous blogs here, especially those concerning our expectations surrounding "romantic love" (here and here), so many of our expectations are in-appropriate, and un-reasonable. When our partners are unable to live up to those unreasonable expectations, when we become disappointed, then we "lose faith". We may "lose faith" in that particular partner, that particular relationship, and move on with "faith" in some future possibility, without ever re-evaluating our expectations. Or, we may, eventually "lose faith" altogether, and give up on ever finding satisfaction in an intimate relationship.

However, if we are wise, if we continue to have faith in ourselves and others, we may "make the effort" with each life experience to come to a better understanding of ourselves and of others. I am hoping with my writing here to help with that understanding because with better understanding Faith Can Be Renewed and with Renewed Faith we can be more motivated to Love - to continue to Make the Effort to learn and to grow in our relationships with ourselves and with others.

And that leads to another "equation" of sorts: Understanding --> (leads to) Rational Faith which --> The Will to Love (and Learn) which --> More Understanding which --> More Rational Faith which --> An Even Greater Will to Love, etc., etc.

For instance, I heard a broadcast of an interview with Alison Armstrong on Lisa Garr's "Aware Radio Show" the other day. I am still "processing", but I think I came away from that with just a little more understanding of men and women.

I am going to keep working on this consideration of the differences between men and women, as well as what is necessary to understand and to practice in order to have healthy, functional, satisfying interpersonal relationships. I guess you could say this has been a "core" focus of my life! Furthermore, because I have developed some Rational Faith in my ability to understand, and even to add, from my own "core", insights that have helped me and may also help others develop greater self- and other understanding, I am going to continue to make the effort to further my understanding, to put into practice what I learn, and to communicate to others.

And you can count on that!

Levels of Intimacy and Relationships - A Guide from Terry Gorski

In general, the following information comes from Terry Gorski's book, Getting Love Right: Learning the Choices of Healthy Intimacy. In this book he shares his point of view on the different types of relationships that people can have with varying levels of intimacy. (Some of it I have paraphrased from a lecture he gave on the same topic that I had the opportunity to listen to many years ago.) As Gorski explains: It is one of the hallmarks of dysfunctional (unhealthy) relating to believe you either have to be totally, intimately involved with someone, from the beginning, and it has to be seen as a serious or potentially long-term relationship, from the beginning, or you have no relationships at all. In other words, there is no "middle ground" - it's "All or Nothing".

One of the things I have come to appreciate about Terry Gorski is that he pretty much sees the realities of relationships for what they are and he addresses those realities as they are rather than making a lot of moral/value judgments about the people having various types of relationships. He basically says, "Look: It's obvious not every relationship is meant to be a serious long-term, committed relationship. People actually relate at a lot of different levels and for different reasons, and for different periods of time, which includes different expectations and different levels of intimacy."

In the original lecture I heard of Terry Gorski speaking on intimacy, he outlined several different levels of relationship as follows:

a) Casual - the type of relationship you have with the cleaning people at your workplace; in this case you'd have a very low level of intimacy, you may or may not even know each other's names, but you may say "Hi" to each other and interact in a very superficial way.

b) Acquaintance – someone you know a little better than a casual relation, but still with very little regular interaction. Maybe you know each other through other closer friends and relationships.

c) Functional Association - this form of relationship includes people that you work with and possibly people that you share housing with, clubs or social organizations of which you are a member. These are "functional associations" in that the individuals share responsibilities to maintain a given circumstance or to accomplish specific goals. Interactions are more task-oriented. Again this usually involves little or no intimacy in the sense of their being discussions about personal matters; although, it is common (though maybe not necessarily healthy) for those lines to be crossed.

d) Companionship - In a companionship, "the activity is more important than the person". In other words, the reason two people get together is to share an activity that they both enjoy. However, if Joe doesn't want to go see the latest Leonardo DiCaprio movie then you call up Steve and see if he wants to go instead since he also likes Leo. If Steve can't go, you move on to Alan, etc. For heterosexuals, it is probably easier to negotiate "companioning" activities with the same sex; however, negotiating motives and expectations can get a little trickier when companioning with the opposite sex. Same goes for homosexuals only in reverse, i.e. it's easier to companion with the opposite sex than it is to companion with the same sex. It is possible, however, in all cases as long as all parties involved understand at what level they are relating. In terms of intimacy, there may be a little more personal interaction between companions, but again, the focus is usually on the activity rather than the person with whom you are sharing the activity.

e) Friendship - Friendship is basically the opposite of companionship. In a friendship, spending time with the person becomes most important and the shared activity becomes secondary. Friendships involve much more focus on interpersonal communication, sharing of feelings, wants, hopes, dreams, desires, fears, etc. Friendships include emotional and psychological intimacy, but not necessarily physical intimacy. I think it is worthwhile noting that I have already discussed three other levels of relationships and we are just now getting to a level where intimacy becomes a more defining element.

f) Although at this point Terry Gorski would have defined the next level of relationship as a "Romantic Relationship" which would be further defined as "having a sexy friend"; I'd rather define this relationship as a Physically Intimate Friendship (especially given the info I shared in these blogs: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I and Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part II). I'm beginning to feel whenever you throw "romance" into the mix, you open the "Big Romantic Myth Box" (not unlike Pandora's) and the relationship will be undone by all the cultural and archetypal expectations that come spewing forth as a result. For me, at least, at this point in my life, I would rather have a lover who was first and foremost a good friend than anything mythically "more" than that (which would actually end up being less, as far as I have experienced it).

In further consideration of what it means to be a good friend; I would say it involves being able to maintain a balance of giving and receiving of energy and attention and a mutual meeting of love needs (See Also:Understanding Basic Human Love Needs). You can have friends who meet your love needs for togetherness or companionship, and you can have other friends who meet your love needs for communication or talking, and you can have still other friends who meet your love needs for physical intimacy and/or caring. If you happen to find a relationship where one other person can satisfy many or all of your most important love needs and you can satisfy all or most of their most important love needs, then I'd say that is a good basis for a longer-term, committed, relationship; if practical circumstances support that as well.

In Getting Love Right..., Gorski divides "love relationships" into four types: experimental dating, transitional and committed relationships, and intimate encounters. He says:

"Experimental dating, transitional relationships, and intimate encounters are all short-term relationships that last from several days to several months and are generally not expected to grow into long-term committed relationships. These short-term involvements each meet particular relationship needs. Experimental dating relationships give us new experiences that allow us to gain the knowledge we need to make sound relationship choices in the future. Transitional relationships provide valuable support during the difficult period after the end of a long-term committed relationship. Intimate encounters are unique relationships outside the normal context of our lives that meet our here-and-now needs for intimacy." (p. 91)

(This last statement is one that has sold me on Terry Gorski - the fact that he acknowledges a functional, relational place for "one night stands"! Granted, they're not what I'm really "into" anymore, but I've definitely had my share and I think I would have been able to truly enjoy them for what they were if overriding "romantic/all or nothing" expectations had not already been programmed into my brain by both religious and secular elements of society!)

Gorski continues:

"Two essential factors in all healthy relationships are awareness of your own and your partner's expectations and your honesty of motive. You must first be aware of the type of relationship you are or are not looking for and then be willing to discuss your expectations with your partner in the early stages of the relationship. If you are unsure of exactly what type of relationship you want, you can communicate that, too. Your partner also must talk about his or her expectations. This will give both of you an opportunity to decide if involvement, under those terms, will meet your relationship needs. This is especially important in transitional relationships and intimate encounters, when a misunderstanding of expectations and motive can be emotionally devastating." (pp. 91-92).

I can only say - how true, how true?! And here's some more:

"Although you think you know what type of relationship you are ready for, your relationship goals may change when you become involved with a particular person and your feelings toward him or her evolve. You can never be certain at the outset how a relationship will turn out. Don't be afraid to change your expectations as your feelings change, but realize that if they do, you need to let your partner know and renegotiate the terms of the relationship. Remember, just because you change your expectations doesn't mean your partner will change his or hers.

"These relationship categories are not absolute. They are important primarily to help you clarify the essential nature of the short-term relationships so that you can have a way of determining what you are seeking in a particular relationship and talk about it with your partner. There are times these categories will overlap, and you may find they are less definite in practice than in theory." (p. 92)

Okay - that's probably enough to digest for this blog.

My motives in writing: a) reinforcing these definitions/concepts with myself, and b) offering to my friends and "subscribers" what I consider to be some very practical understanding for healthy intimate relationships. My hope is that they will learn from this information as well, thus increasing the chances for them to also have healthy, functional relationships if they are not experiencing them already. And if they realize that what they have is/are already healthy, functional relationship/s - then this will help to reinforce and validate their experience in a way that all our media propaganda about the "romantic myth of love" cannot.

Understanding Basic Human Love Needs

Several years ago in the context of a "Match.com" relationship, I asked my partner the following questions: How do people really "know" at the beginning of a long-term relationship that it will actually be a long-term relationship? Barring stories from elder relatives, especially those who have been together for say, 25 years or longer, what references do we have for what one might expect at the beginning of a relationship to indicate the long-term future of the relationship? Furthermore, without those kinds of references for comparison, how did either he or I know how to assess our own feelings, and the long-term potential of our relationship?

Since he was not able to offer satisfying answers to any of my questions, I decided to do some research on the internet with "Love" as my search term.

What follows is a greatly paraphrased version of what I found to be one of the most relevant results of that search. It was originally published on a site called "Lovetingle.com", and even though that source no longer exists, I still like to give the authors credit. The information takes the form of an "exercise" in which you (and a partner, if you have one) determine what are your Most Important "Love Needs". Once you've got that figured out, then you can have a more rational discussion about whether or not each of you is prepared to meet your partner's most important love needs, especially at the level of a "Physically Intimate Friendship" (See Also: Levels of Intimacy and Relationships)

From my current point of view, just figuring out what Your Most Important Love Needs are is an essential piece of "home" "work" - the "work" you do on your own, at "home", and it is something everyone should know about themselves before they get involved in any kind of serious relationship. Furthermore, once you have a better understanding of "love needs" in general, you are in a better position to have a conversation about this subject with a potential partner; i.e. you might be able to guide them through the consideration process so that they can come to a deeper understanding of themselves while you are also getting to know them.

In addition, it should be recognized from this discussion that Love Needs are Real, they are different for different people, and they vary in their level of importance for different people. To expect your partner to deny their own love needs because you are not comfortable meeting them is irrational, and not truly loving. In other words, understanding each other's Most Important Love Needs, and each person's willingness and capability for meeting the other's love needs should Weigh Heavily as individuals looking to couple go through their Selection Process (See Also: On Sharing What Is Most Meaningful). As Terry Gorski points out in Getting Love Right: Learning the Choices of Healthy Intimacy, most relationships fail due to Selection Errors!

I am all about learning to make better choices myself, and the consideration below has been helping to guide those decisions in my own case for a long-time now. Hopefully, readers of this blog will find this information useful as well.

So, to begin...Everyone has certain things they need from their relationships, and those relationships can have varying levels of intimacy and commitment. (See Again: Levels of Intimacy and Relationships if you haven't already.) Just like food, water and shelter, love needs are not things you only want. You NEED your love needs to be met to feel "comfortable in your own skin" as a human being. The mutual meeting of love needs is what is critical for any truly intimate relationship to survive, whether or not that relationship includes physical intimacy.

Although by no means complete, here is a list of "love needs" to consider:

1) Talking
2) Love Making
3) Caring
4) Togetherness
5) Loyalty
6) Looks
7) Money
8) Help
9) Family
10) Verbal Awe/Expression

While you read the explanations, be thinking of how important each need is to YOU:

Talk

Unlike the need for sex, Talk is not a love need that is exclusive to an intimate relationship. Keep this in mind: you can experience the feeling of "falling in love" with someone simply by talking to them, because your love need for talking is being fulfilled. If your significant other is not listening and talking to you, and Talk is one of your biggest love needs…you may very well "fall out of love" with that person!

There is such a thing as bad Talk. This happens when the person you are talking to is angry, shows disrespect, or the conversation in general is negative or controlling. This type of bad Talk will hurt a relationship.

When you first started dating someone you were really attracted to, you probably talked all the time. You were both very curious about each other and were finding out everything you could. If you’re like most couples, after a while the Talk slowed considerably. This obviously becomes a problem for the partner whose love need to Talk is high on their love need priority list.

Love Making

This is a need only your partner can meet if you are married or have a committed, physically intimate, monogamous relationship. The need for sex is important for many reasons. Men usually find it physically satisfying while also enjoying the challenge of bringing pleasure to their partners. Women tend to get more out of the emotional part of the emotional-sexual connection, maybe even feeling emotionally closer to their partners during physical intimacy than they do at any other time. Most people who have sex as a high priority love need, will feel better about themselves when they feel genuinely desired by their partners.

There are many different ways to approach physical intimacy. Some people prefer to keep things completely spontaneous, while others may prefer to practice Tantra and/or engage in "planned intimate occasions". If this is a high-priority love need for either partner, then it is important for it not to be ignored merely as a consequence of "life distractions", like children, and work. Having "planned intimate occasions" creates an opportunity to truly let-go of those other concerns for a while and focus on relating intimately. It can also give partners something to look forward to while they are otherwise handling the daily, maybe less pleasurable, responsibilities of their lives.

As with other love needs, it is important to be able to talk with your partner about your intimate needs, what behaviors and actions from your partner make you feel loved and desired. Therefore, talk often about what each of you like and don't like. Ask specific questions; sometimes one partner may feel shy about bringing an issue up, so it’s important to probe. Try to avoid the tendency to expect your partner to read your mind. You are much more likely to get what you need when you are willing to talk about those needs openly.

Also, if one or the other partner has a major problem with or aversion to physical intimacy, and cannot feel comfortable making themselves available to intimacy with a partner for whom physical intimacy is a high-priority love need, then it may be a "deal breaker" for the relationship. The sooner people are honest about that with one another, the better; i.e. it should be taken into consideration as part of the "selection process" referred to above. This does not deny the opportunity for growth and change, but it is also important sometimes to see realities for what they are and manage levels of relationship and expectations accordingly.

Care

Care is showing someone that you love them via your words and actions. Hugging, holding hands, kissing, massaging, or writing a love note all show Care. Actually listening to your partner, without judgment, being compassionate, recognizing their vulnerability, also expresses care. It is important to care if your partner actually feels loved, understood, and appreciated by you, and to acknowledge the differences between the feeling of loving and the feeling of being loved and cared for, honored, and respected.

Togetherness

Going to the movies together, having dinner at your favorite restaurant, golfing with each other, and ordering in pizza are a few examples of togetherness. Obviously, this is doing things as partners instead of on your own. Maybe at one point you only did what the other partner wanted to do (perhaps you weren’t interested in going to an art show but you both went anyway).

It’s important that you both do things together, whether the other partner is 100% interested or not. Alternate your favorite things to do if you have to, just to be together. While it’s necessary for the both of you to enjoy some alone time, you are likely to deepen your relationship while doing things in tandem. If you love going dancing and your husband does not, then he is probably out at a boat show with his buddies at the same time. This is a recipe for disaster if someone of the opposite sex happens to join either of you. Why? Because if you enjoy yourself most while you do these activities but your partner is not there, you risk falling in love with the person who is with you and therefore satisfying your Togetherness need.

(Note: This ties into the idea of being able to share things that are "most meaningful" to each person. It does not mean that you have to share Everything together, but being able to share the Most Meaningful things is important. See again: On Sharing What Is Most Meaningful).

Loyalty

Being loyal in love means building trust, and the only way to do that is to be truthful and open ALL the time. You need to know that you can trust your partner while you’re not together, and that they uphold you in the same manner they would if you were standing right beside them. Unlike the love need to Talk, which could be about anything, the need for loyalty includes discussing very deep feelings and revealing everything important about you. These range from political views, family history to what you did today, what you’re doing tomorrow and any future plans. If your significant other has this need and it is not met or vice versa, security and trust will fade fast. There shouldn’t be anything that you don’t want the other to know about, and if there is, work it out before you get more involved.


Looks

Love at first sight? Only if this is one of your most important love needs. Yes it seems superficial, but the truth is this need can be just as important as the others. Weight, clothing style, and personal hygiene are important factors when thinking about Looks. There is nothing wrong with needing your partner to put effort into their appearance. Perhaps they did when you were first dating and have recently stopped? Regardless of the situation, Looks can be an important issue between two people, and again, it is not something either partner should expect the other to ignore, if it is one of their most important love needs.

Money

Money is another love need that may seem superficial; however the actual money (or lack thereof) is important to the relationship, if it is a need of yours (or your partner’s). It brings the security of knowing that financial stability is there. You might make plenty of money, therefore it is not important to you if your spouse does or does not. If you are not content in the financial department, other areas of the relationship can turn sour quickly. It all depends on what you consider “enough” money. Do you want to be extremely comfortable? Or just get by? People have different expectations of the level of income needed to satisfy their love need for money.

Help

Remember, love needs know no gender. This need has to do with housekeeping, things such as keeping things clean and tidy, cooking and washing dishes. This is often a need that is more important to whichever partner does the majority of these tasks. You may take on a lot of the household responsibility, and feel that your partner does nothing to help you out. If you feel overwhelmed, and are not getting any Help, it can creep up on you and result in bitter feelings towards the other.

If this is a need of yours, you feel happy and comfortable when things are as you want them. When they are not, you feel out of sorts and irritated. Some married couples do these chores together at first but slowly slip into routine of one partner carrying more of the work load. If the most important thing to you is that the house is vacuumed daily and you expect to come into an organized home, often times this can’t be done alone, especially where their are children present.

Family

There are two different parts to the Family need. The first is children. Simply put, you have a love need for your partner to be involved with your children. It could vary anywhere from needing them to take an active role in caring or nurturing, or just needing them to uphold the family values and rules (perhaps you prefer to do most of the day to day parenting). Keep in mind feeding, dressing, or watching the children while you run out to the store is NOT the family love need we are talking about. Teaching and spending quality time helping them grow and learn IS. If this is a love need of yours, you must also agree significantly with your partner on the type and method of parenting, whether or not you will use physical punishment can be a major issue, and a very important one to decide on before you have children.

The second part of the Family love need involves extended family. It could vary anywhere from needing them to take an active role in caring and nurturing, to just needing them to back you up in decision making. Taking trips to see your mother and father, spending Holidays with your brothers or sisters, etc., could be very important matters for you or your partner, especially if either of you experience love deeply in the context of family associations.

Verbal Awe/Expression

The need for verbal awe/expression is important to many. As a human, you naturally want to communicate. Do you love getting compliments? Do you hate to be criticized? If you feel that your partner is not vocal about things they appreciate about you or love about you, then he or she is not expressing themselves in a way that satisfies this love need. Expression is defined as an act, process, or instance of representing or conveying in words. You know your partner loves you, but you want them to TELL you this, or SHOW it to you through actions.

This can be a very easy love need to meet for a lot of people, as many times this is how relationships begin in the first place. But, if this is not done the results can be hazardous and potentially fatal to your relationship.... If you need these compliments and gestures, but your significant other stops doing them after you’ve been together or has a problem doing them from the beginning, it can devastate you. Not only will it make you feel unsure about yourself, but you will begin to question things like their fidelity, their interest in you, your importance to them, and the meaning of the relationship.

The bottom line: People tend to "fall in love" because their love needs are being met. However, if in longer-term relationships, one or the other partner stops meeting the others Most Important Love Needs, then the relationship can suffer and even dissolve entirely as people "fall out of love".

With the information shared here (and in some of my other blogs), people can become more fully conscious of what it means to "love" someone, rather than merely experiencing the feelings of "falling in" or "falling out" of love. In truth, loving is a choice. One of the greatest ways to express love to another person is to actively meet their Love Needs; i.e. to make them Feel Loved by your words and actions, that can actually be targeted in very specific ways as outlined above.

This is what love between ordinary human beings is really all about. And although it may not satisfy all of your needs; i.e. it will not substitute for your need to experience true, personal, spiritual, ecstasy (as I discuss here Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I), it can certainly go a long way to broadening your capacity to have truly satisfying relationships, with varying levels of intimacy, with many of your other fellow human beings.

Given all of the dysfunction, dissociation, and suffering that is what most people are experiencing these days, being able to work-out our most intimate interpersonal relationships, to be able to find more contentment and satisfaction in those relationships, can go a long way towards making the world a better place, a more peaceful place, for everyone.

A "Bill of Rights" for Interpersonal Relationships

In contrast to seeking "romantic love" (as I discuss in this blog: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I) I am dedicated to keeping my heart and soul grounded in the real world of ordinary human beings who have more or less ordinary love needs that can only be satisfied by rather simple and ordinary loving.  One has to wonder though, if it were so simple to love this way that any ordinary human being could do it, then why is it so few of us actually do?

My current understanding is that our "ego 'I's" tend to get in the way - they want to be "special," or they want to see their love interest as "special". It may be that people are seeking the "unconditional love" they did not receive as a child, something I address in my TEDx talk here: Get Ready - The World is Waiting. Where there is a biochemical pattern to "Instant Intimacy", we can get psychologically and physiologically addicted to it, so we move from one "Instantly Intimate" relationship to another. Being addicted in this way, we tend to look for "drama" in all of our experiencing in relationship (both positive and negative), and "ordinary loving" just doesn't measure up.

In effect, the "ego 'I'" distracts itself from real loving by pursuing the much more dramatic, Romantic Illusion of Love. And, as fairly recent experience has taught me, it seems as soon as the relationship actually starts to be about Love Itself, and not merely about "ego-gratification", then egoically possessed people will walk (or run) away from those relationships, seeking instead to repeat the dysfunctional/dramatic/romantic, pseudo-loving, relationships with which they are already familiar, and to which they are (mostly unconsciously) addicted.

So what's involved in Real Loving - human to human?  Here is something I've read in "Getting Love Right: Learning the Choices of Healthy Intimacy" by Terrence (Terry) Gorski:  It's called "The Relationship Bill of Rights" and it goes like this:

1.  I have the right to be treated with dignity and respect.
2.  I have the right to be free from psychological or physical abuse.
3.  I have the right to proper notice and negotiation prior to the relationship being terminated.
4.  I have the right to experience my own thoughts and feelings.
5.  I have the right to tell my partner honestly and responsibly what I am thinking and feeling - even if my partner does not agree - without being condemned for it.
6.  I have the right to have my own life outside of the relationship.
7.  I have the right to continue to learn and to grow.
8.  I have the right to talk openly about and seek to resolve relationship problems.
9.  I have the right to end the relationship if it is not meeting my needs.
10.  I recognize that my partner has the same rights I do.  (Pages 334 and 335.)

(Why do I think these seem like potential lyrics for a rap song? : ))

Although the focus of Gorski's book  is on intimate relationships, I think many of these "rights" are just as important in other types of relationships, with different levels of intimacy.  In other words, these are Fundamental to healthy, functional relationships where there is a commitment to mutual love and respect that takes priority over mere ego-gratification.

If I look back at my relationship with my mother (my first example/experience of a "loving relationship"), I'd have to say there were many of the fundamental rights listed above that she violated.  Granted she was mentally ill, but that did not change the impact of her actions on me especially as a young child. I strongly suspect now that, just like physical abuse, her emotional/psychological patterning with me predisposed me to allow others to violate those same rights in my adult life in other (supposedly) "loving" relationships.  However, in one particular relationship I experienced shortly after reading Gorski's book, I did find the courage and justification to stand up for myself especially with respect to Right Number 5 from the list above. And, ultimately I ended the relationship (exercising Right Number 9) when the other party was not willing to recognize or end those violations.

Since then I have also learned to be much more discerning about what it Feels like to be loved - in effect, to have these basic rights recognized and honored in my relationships with others.  I am also taking even more conscious responsibility for how I relate to others with respect to these rights as they apply to them.  Although I had some intuition of the importance of these rights before reading Gorski's book, reading it definitely served to solidify and reawaken my awareness relative to these issues, and I feel much more capable now of not only standing up for my own rights, but also respecting these rights in my relationships with others.

I hope this offers the same insight and encouragement to others who read this blog. : )

Relational Revelations from My Study of Electronics

I read recently via Facebook that it is now becoming better understood that the physical human heart is "the strongest generator of electrical and magnetic fields in the body".

Got me thinking about this blog I posted several years ago on MySpace. Thought it would be another good one to share here. For the record, this came out of a Very Heated debate on the Dr. Phil site over one program that involved a man who was engaging in what he called "polyfidelity": open, and mutually agreed upon intimate relations with both his wife and another woman. The people who engaged in the debate on-line were both monogamists and active polyamorists. You think "gay marriage" is an issue? Well, wait until someone really challenges our orientation toward the "cult of pairs"! The husband of Dr. Phil's show did and the backlash was incredible...and interesting as well given the information and life experiences shared by the polyamorists.

Anyway, here are some of my related thoughts...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There are two major ways to connect energy in a circuit, one is in series and one is in parallel.  In a series circuit, if one component fails, then energy will be cut off to all other components in that circuit.  When components are connected in parallel, one component can fail, and the others will still receive energy from the source. 

It is my observation that most people living today think they are "disconnected" from The Source; i.e. God or Divine Consciousness, or however they label It.  In fact much of religious practice is oriented towards "bridging the gap", with all kinds of different ways to go about doing that. Furthermore, since so many of us think we are "disconnected" from that Main Power Source, we are much more likely to engage in relationships where we become reliant on one another to receive the "love energy" that we feel we need.   

But what if that's really not the case?  What if in truth, we are all connected to that Source, it's just that, for all kinds of reasons, we tend to think and act otherwise, or we "resist" It's Direct Influence, the movement of that Love Energy down into and through our lives?   

Because of this resistance, we tend to orient ourselves "in series" with one another.  Each person, each component, relying on the flow of energy through the other to get our needs for Love Energy met.  With that thinking, a "break" in the circuit means "no more flow" of energy. No more love. No more happiness.  

What I have observed is that within any close relationship it is actually quite a challenge to maintain one's Individual Connection to THE SOURCE; especially because it is a spiritual rather than physical connection.  Instead, people tend to start "hooking-up" and "thinking" in "series", becoming reliant on the flow of energy through one person as the source of energy for themselves and being distracted from their Primary Source connection. 

Nevertheless, there is another way to "couple". : ))  And that is to have two components, hooked up in parallel to THE SOURCE and side by side.  In this way the energy moving through one, indirectly affects the energy flowing through the other by what is called "induction" or "inductive coupling".  Consequently, both individuals stay "connected" directly to THE SOURCE and indirectly with each other, but in a way that they can still actually "feel" each other's energy. 

But keep in mind, what they will actually be feeling is the Energy of Love, the Energy of Divine Consciousness Itself being radiated or manifested or Realized (made real) through each of them.  And even if one "component" should leave the "circuit", the other will still be able to feel Love and Energy, because they are still connected to THE SOURCE.  Their experience of "inductive coupling" with their partner may have a certain unique quality to it because of the unique quality of each person (each component) involved, but should one person leave the relationship, it will not be as if Love Itself has left, but only one of Its Many Forms, while THE SOURCE remains constant. 

I think this analogy may be of importance when considering the underlying issues between "monogamists" and "polyamorists".  Where monogamists think that there is one circuit, with the energy to be shared between only two people, or members of the immediate family unit, and "breaking the circuit" cuts off the energy flow for everyone; the polyamorists are working more "in parallel" with each other, where the current still flows in each as they move in and out of close relationship, or intimate association with one another.  Not necessarily something I'm in a position to "prove" right now, but it does fit pretty well into the overall analogy.

I think once someone really recognizes or becomes re-identified with the Truth of their own Lightness of Being, then that opens the door that much wider for Love and Caring to flow freely.  Why hold back?  Why "separate"?  Except that it is a pretty "hard habit to break". : ))  So, it just takes "practice".  Feeling the ego resisting and pulling back, and then exercising the heart muscles by drawing on The Source to Love Beyond and Through that resistance. 

And maybe, at some point along the way, there is no longer any identification with separateness, there is no resistance, The Energy and the Component become One and there is Only Light.

On Sharing What is Most Meaningful

In my previous blog, Overcoming My Addiction to "Falling In Love" I touched briefly on the idea that part of my attraction to young "Joe" was the way he responded to the books I shared with him. He found them "meaningful" in much the same way that I had found them "meaningful." In the case of those particular books, that had been a rare experience for me; i.e. for someone else to find them as meaningful as I did.

And even though the relationship did not become more serious, for all kinds of other reasons, I learned something important about relating in general as a consequence of having this opportunity to "share something meaningful." In fact, I have come to the conclusion now that part of the "glue" that holds relationships together is this mutuality of "shared meaning."

However, in order to recognize how the sharing of meaning might play out in your own relationships, you first have to recognize what it is that is actually meaningful in your own life, and more importantly, to figure out what is Most Meaningful. In other words, you have to do what I like to call your "home work" - taking the time to get to know yourself better, before trying to integrate that "self" into a relationship with another person. If you don't know what is Most Meaningful to you, then a) How will you be able to talk about that with another person, and b) How will you be able to assess if there is any alignment between what you find meaningful and what the other person finds meaningful? Granted, there may not be mutual sharing of All that is meaningful between two people, but I dare say the degree to which people do share what is most meaningful, will have an impact on how long-term the relationship proves to be.

Does what is meaningful to you change over time? I suspect it does, and, in fact, as each of us grows what is Most Meaningful at any given time may vary quite a lot. This may also end up being why relationships end; i.e. one person grows towards something different that becomes particularly meaningful to them, while the other person in the relationship either grows in a direction of their own, or, for whatever reasons, has stopped growing at all. When relationships stagnate, or lose their passion, again, the loss of the Meaningfulness of the relationship, or even of each person's own life, may be the underlying cause.

At this point, I don't think many people are very conscious of what is Most Meaningful to them. In those relationships where shared meaning exists and persists, it probably does more by chance than by conscious recognition. That's why the "revelation" I experienced in my relating with Joe was so profound. It was not something I had ever recalled being directly addressed anywhere else.

I have since, however, become more and more sensitive to the experience of Shared Meaning and how wonderful it can truly be when it Is Shared. The Sharing of Meaning becomes Meaningful in Itself, and it seems being conscious of it only adds more to the experience. I am a bit sorry for having come to this conscious recognition somewhat later in life, but I am Grateful for it now and for the opportunities I have now, and ahead of me, to continue to consciously Share What Is Meaningful and to share what is Most Meaningful with others.

Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part II

The following blog is actually going to tie-in to two of my previous blogs: 1) The Biology of "Heaven" and 2) Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I. So if you have not read both of those yet you might want to.

I will sub-title this blog: The Biology of "Falling In Love"

For a quick review: As the movie "What the 'Bleep' Do We Know?" points out, the hypothalamus is our body's own "chemical/drug factory", and each emotion is communicated through the body via a unique chemical or chain of peptides.  Joy, sorrow, embarrassment, anger, ecstasy, anxiety, fear, frustration, awe, fascination, curiosity, sexual arousal, love, etc. etc., etc. - every emotional/psychological state you can imagine has its own unique chemical formula. So what your body feels - what you experience as your emotional state is actually the effects of these chemicals traveling to all of your cells and linking up with appropriately matched receptors on those cells, causing additional biochemical reactions within those cells, etc., etc.

As it turns out, it is just as easy to become "addicted" to the chemical/drug patterning of your own body as it is to get addicted to drugs that you take in from outside of your body.  And in order to satisfy the addictive demands of that patterning, each of us will seek out or be drawn to conditions that cause us to experience the same emotions, over and over again, positive or negative, for better or worse.

Upon further consideration, I realized that (apparently) in the last several years I have been consciously conditioning my body, my hypothalamus in particular, to produce "happy" drugs.  And, in effect, I've become "addicted" to Being Happy, naturally. : )) (And that's why I add emoto-smileys to my writing all the time. : )) (See, I just did it again! : )) (Okay, I'm going to stop now . . . .) Granted, this does not mean I ALWAYS FEEL HAPPY, but it is definitely my Preferred State and a) I really do notice the difference when I am feeling "happy" and when I am feeling something else, and b) I generally know how to get myself back to Feeling Happy when I make a conscious choice to do so.

As I began to more closely observe my emotional states, and especially my desires to experience certain emotional states, I began to wonder:  Where are these desires coming from?  What are the underlying chemical patterns that my body is still "addicted" to and under what conditions did they originate?

My first real insight in answering these questions came as a consequence of a relationship I entered into with someone I met online.  After some time e-mailing back and forth we eventually met, and spent some time together, and not too long after that became intimate, etc., etc. After a fairly short time being in the relationship, I found myself longing to "fall in love", to "let myself" take that "plunge". 

Now, it may seem odd to some of you reading this that I was even thinking about "falling in love" as a matter of conscious choice. You may ask, "Isn't 'falling in love' something that just 'happens' to people . . . unconsciously?"

Most of the time, I would say, "Yes".  However, many, many years ago I read, The Road Less Traveled , by M. Scott Peck, so I was already aware of "nature's little trick" as he described it; i.e. the tendency for our "ego-boundaries" to "collapse" spontaneously under certain circumstances, thus giving us the "feeling of oneness with each other" which might motivate us to mate and produce offspring.  As a consequence, I had started observing this mechanism within myself and had learned a certain degree of control over my "urge to merge". Thus it had become more of a matter of choice for me. However, with my new understanding of biochemical patterning, and the "addictive" nature of that patterning, I began to realize that wasn't the real issue; i.e. "falling in love" consciously vs. "falling in love" unconsciously.  No, the real issue was "Why?" Why did I want to "fall in love"? Why did I want to feel "merged" with my partner?  Maybe even more importantly:  Did I need to feel "merged" with my partner to JUSTIFY loving him? In other words, did I have to feel "in love" in order "to love"?  

Once I got to that question, I already new the answer, which was, "No, absolutely not." I knew I knew how to love without having to "fall in love". Nevertheless, those other "Why" questions remained unanswered.  Why was there this deep longing to feel "merged" with the other person and why was it so closely associated in my mind (and body) with "loving" that other person? Where had I felt that kind of "oneness" before and why was it so compelling? Then the puzzle pieces fell into place...

In the process of writing a research paper on "Childhood Depression", I came across a study of specific family relationship patterns that predisposed children to depression later in life. The one pattern that caught my attention in particular was called "enmeshment"; i.e. when the child is "enmeshed" with the primary caregiver, usually the mother.  In this case there are no significant ego-boundaries between the mother and the child; in effect, the child becomes a mere extension of the mother's or primary caregiver's ego.  As I have alluded to in previous posts here regarding my life story with my mother, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my mother and I were "enmeshed" - totally - pretty much from the time I was born.

And that was my primary love relationship for the early part of my life right up through adolescence.  It was the context in which I experienced what my mother called love, over and over again.  But, as I think I have tried to explain before, she was not loving me for "me"; she was loving a totally dependent and willing object onto which she projected her own self-image; her own ego; in effect she was only 'loving' herself, which is one of the recognized traits of a narcissistic personality, and that is often associated with schizophrenia.   

I came to the conclusion that my original psychological patterning with my mother was also reflected on a biochemical level, and that pattern was reinforced over roughly 20 years; plenty of time for it to become "addictive", but more so for it to feel "comfortable" and "normal" for me, even desirable.

I suspect the tradeoff for my true emotional and psychological autonomy was a sense of security, although all of that was constantly being contradicted by my mother's paranoid fears. The more I think of what a complicated emotional, psychological mess I was really in, the more I understand why it has been so difficult for me to sort it all out and be able to experience truly functional and loving relationships as an adult . . . but I haven't given up yet! : ))

I have learned from Avatar Adi Da that one way of expressing love is simply to Be Happy around others, whether they are strangers or intimates; to consciously and literally embody and/or manifest Divine Consciousness as Love-Bliss-Happiness in all relationships and under all conditions. And, although I'm not yet perfect at it, that's what I intentionally do on a regular basis now. By recognizing yet another potentially limiting emotional/ psychological/ biochemical pattern in my body-mind, I have also been given the opportunity to transcend it. 

I know for a fact that my relationship with my mother was a fairly extreme version of "enmeshment" and resulted primarily from her having very serious mental problems.  However, what I have come to understand about schizophrenia and other extreme mental disorders is that they are part of a continuum, a continuum which includes greater and lesser degrees of similar patterning.

For instance, it is a very natural and normal phenomenon for a mother to form a very strong bond with her newborn child.  In addition, it is well known in psychology that it takes several months of development outside of the womb before the infant starts to experience itself as being fundamentally separate from the mother.  The length of time may vary significantly with respect to when the mother is prepared to "let go of" that very close relationship with her child and give the child the emotional and psychological space they need to develop as individuals.

In other words, even without abnormal enmeshment, and in the absence of some very unusual circumstance where that bond may not develop normally between the mother or primary caregiver and the newborn, just about every human being will experience a period of time during their infancy when they feel "one" with the "other".

Furthermore, given the food taking and nurturance that is experienced in that context, the "feeling of oneness" carries with it many positive associations. Consequently, it is perfectly natural for each of us to want to repeat that experience, and that desire is reinforced by our biochemical patterning. I dare say this is one of the great foundations of the "myth of romantic love". Even Plato's description of the two halves, male and female, finally finding their "wholeness" in intimate union may stem from Plato's latent memories of "oneness" with his own mother while he, himself, was an infant.

People throughout history and up to the current day identify with this idea because, except for unusual cases where the child does not receive early nurturance, we have all had a similar experience as infants and we all carry within us that latent memory and desire as a biochemical imprint. Furthermore, research into the role of Oxytocin as a primary "bonding chemical" would suggest that there are certainly evolutionary benefits to having a chemical reinforcer for the "bonds" we make with others and the feeling we experience when we have oxytocin flowing through our systems.

Nevertheless, there is So Much More to making a long-term intimate relationship work than merely experiencing a rush of chemicals every now and then. Furthermore, getting to experience that every once in a while does not, and cannot, counteract all the negative thinking/chemical patterning a person might otherwise be perpetuating.

It kind of comes back to how responsible you are for Your Own Happiness - FIRST; as in...How You Consciously Choose to Feel in contrast to how you might wait for circumstances outside yourself, or some "other person" outside yourself to stimulate a particular feeling in you.

If your naturally produced "Happy Drug" is the "cake", then sure, "oxytocin" might be the "icing on the cake." Nevertheless, it's a good idea if you have the "cake" taken care of first, because trying to get by on just "icing" will most likely make you sick! : p

So: Here's to "Love" for Real! Not the fleeting, accidental or circumstantial, unconscious "falling in love" kind.

And if you come to the conclusion that you are "addicted to falling in love" then, stay-tuned, as I have yet another story to share that might just help you with that.

Until Next Time...

Peace! : ))

Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I

What similarities are there between "falling in love" and having a "religious experience"? Ecstasy, bliss, a feeling of "oneness with the Universe", peace, security, freedom - all are commonly described experiences of both "falling in love" and "awakening" or "self-transcendance" or "enlightenment".

What Robert Johnson points out in We: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love is that, given the culture that has arisen out of the scientific revolution (and progressive materialism) started several centuries ago, our "souls" (or "psyches" or "unconscious sides" or the "collective unconscious" as a whole, or "God/dess") have persisted in wanting to be "known" and related to, honored, and loved. Where once this was available through more broadly accepted "religious practice" (soul searching, personal pondering of "That Which is Invisible", etc.), scientific materialism has virtually wiped out that possibility for "modern man". And yet, in spite of our almost exclusive focus on only what can be scientifically measured and proven (or literalized in the case of the Bible) and willfully manipulated for our personal material gain, we have nevertheless continued to cling en masse to the "Myth of Romantic Love".

As a consequence, for almost every person in modern day Western Culture, we have come to expect our intimate partners to fulfill a terribly idealized and even deified role in relationship to us. We seek passionately only for that "ecstasy" and feel There Is Something Missing from Our Intimate Relationships If We Are Not ALWAYS Experiencing That! In other words, at least in This culture, we do not feel comfortable or satisfied with the idea or the commitment to HUMAN LOVE between HUMAN BEINGS.

As a consequence, our capacity for Human Love and Divine Love are both compromised since they are not associated properly within their appropriate contexts; i.e. Divine Love is that which one experiences in a personal (individual) relationship with the Divine (or one's soul, or one's feeling nature, or one's unconscious, or one's anima/animus, however you want to acknowledge or identify the "invisible" part of yourself); while Human Love is experienced in relationship with other Human Beings, other (apparently separate) individuals outside of oneself. And if it is not already obvious, there are Very Different obligations in each form of relationship and different ways to "practice discipline" in each of those levels of association.

What this boils down to is - instead of acknowledging "God/dess" as "God/dess" we keep expecting our partners to be the "God" or "Goddess" in our lives, and as soon as they fail to live up to our expectations, they either have to suffer our disappointment through emotional, psychological, or even physical abuse, or...it's off to find another man or woman to carry that "projection" for us until they too fail under the weight of it. There are other cultures in the world that do not place such inappropriate and even irrational expectations on their human partners - and, guess what, their human relationships are much more likely to be stable and satisfying as a consequence. Surprise, surprise!

For many years now I feel I have been living at the "narrow end of the bell curve". And..to be honest, I haven't been living with "romantic love expectations" of my partners for a lot of that time, going back to the first book I read about anima/animus projections back in 1993 (i.e. Invisible Partners by John Sanford). However, I know for a fact, because I have been Unwilling to get "caught up in" that "divine love at the human level" game, I have made myself "less attractive" to the men around me who were hoping/expecting to experience that with me. Truth is, I do not expect my male companions to play the "Romantic Hero" in some overly dramatized version of an intimate relationship with me, nor am I inclined to play the "Damsel in Distress" or the Athena-like Love Goddess who vacillates between blessing and cursing her lover with no peace to be found in some middle ground of ordinary human life. Furthermore, because I have fully satisfied my need for a direct, ecstatic Love Relationship with the Divine, through my ongoing religious practice, I am simply not "driven" to seek that in my human intimate relationships.

Does that mean I do not "need" those human relationships? Of course not! I acknowledge the fact that I am as much a human being as I am a spiritual being. Obviously human beings need to relate to one another for all kinds of reasons and in all kinds of contexts and at all kinds of levels of intimacy. But in our culturally conditioned quest for that "One Love" we are failing miserably in our capacity to love in all these other relationships at all these other levels.

And that, my friends, I feel is one of the greatest tragedies in our society today and it has been the Great Tragedy of Western Culture for centuries. However, this World persists in the midst of our insanity - at least for now, and that means we still have time to "change our ways" and change our expectations and get back to relating with the Visible and the Invisible as it is apparently "normal" and appropriate for us to do as the human and spiritual beings that we are.