Posted by brightfeather in 
While I’ve been on vacation without my partner I have been reflecting on this: society generally considers that relationships owe us happiness and bliss ever after. While happy couples do exist, divorce statistics indicate the majority are not happy after the first glow dims. Setting that side I venture to say that we would be hard pressed to believe that every couple who does not head for the divorce courts is blissfully basking in the initial glow of new love. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that some may be content with what they have going. It may be enough for them. But is it good enough for you?
Here are some words of wisdom on the subject of transformation and commitment from a woman who I greatly admire. Dr. Gabriella Kortsch, is a psychotherapist, clinical hypnotherapist, relationship coach, author, and a professional speaker.
Relationships Free of Dependence
This less appealing reality actually holds the key for a true loving relationship that is free of dependence on the other. Jung wrote: “The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.” In a nutshell, transformation is what relationships are all about. We remain in relationships while the going is good, but often break off at the first sign of trouble. If the person we love turns out differently than our initial estimation of them, we feel they led us to believe something about their character that was not true, or, that we simply can not trust our judgment.
Relationships Based on Complementarity Rather Than on Need
But the crux of the matter is quite different. It is precisely at this problematic point in the relationship that we have the chance of creating a relationship based on mutual complementarity rather than on need; a free relationship between two people who want to be together, rather than two people who need to be together. So how do we get there?
Awareness
A very important step in this process is becoming aware of ourselves; gaining insight into ourselves. Another step involves filling our own “holes”, our needs, rather than hoping to fill them through others. Clearly this is easier said than done. It literally means growing into wholeness - a lifelong process.
Filling Our Needs
Our needs get us into most relationship problems. We seek out people, consciously or unconsciously, that fulfill our needs, rather than filling our needs ourselves. Whenever we obsess about someone, feeling that we can not live without them, we should examine what it is that is missing in us very carefully, what we feel others are “giving” us, and why we feel that we need them for our very survival. This element is being shown to us through the relationship, the obsession, the need, the desire to control and possess. If we could only become aware of this, we might still suffer, but we would have finally found the real road to freedom from this kind of dependent need.
Now that you have read the forgoing I’m wondering where are you at in your relationship? Are you aware and on the pathway towards freedom and true commitment or otherwise?
P.S. If you are regular reader who is known to me and or has previously had comments approved and you make a comment indicating that you do not wish to be identified, I am prepared to remove your identifying information before posting your comment.
I have been wondering about this and thinking how best to respond. I suppose there are lots of things I would like to say but it is difficult to frame those thoughts in a coherent way. Maybe I should just say this. Our society seems to be headed into a mode of serial monogamy (of sorts). That gives a richer life in some senses. In other ways it is a terrible shame and very damaging to society as a whole. It is also a model which becomes increasingly less attractive with age:). That leaves many folk - I would guess - in a limbo on both sides of that equation. Those out of long term relationships want to be in them. Those in them often entertain thoughts of being out of them. Is it a mess? You bet.
There’s no question who your mother is but who your father is was a guessing game until DNA testing became was developed. If we carefully explored the roots of the monogamous model that it would all revolve around paternity, power and position.
After all is said and done in ancient societies who your father was as well as his power and position in society was where his offspring drew their social position from. And using Paris Hilton as a present day example that hasn’t changed much, has it?
If we dug deeper still we would find that it is women who have been historically expected to remain monogamous so the paternity, power and position model could not be upended. Using the European example virile and powerful men were expected to have at least one mistress but were likewise expected to maintain the family “honour”.
In other words, I utterly reject any arguments to the effect of humans being naturally monogamous. It’s simply a paternalistic social construct that has been used for millenniums the world over to keep women and children “in line”.
Feel better now?
Yes. It was good to get that “off my chest”.
Good. I am glad.
Me too. what you wrote was thought provoking enough to prompt me to share. It seems to me that monogamy is accepted as the best and even the only relationship worth considering. However, that doesn’t jive with either the historic or modern patterns we see around us. And as you have observed the most common thing we witness today is serial monogamy.
On monogamy - If my husband decided he didn’t want to be monogamous I would not stay with him. If I decided I didn’t want to be monogamous I’d expect him not to want to stay either. I know couples who have a “non-monogamous, so called open” relationship and I know I could never accept that for myself, regardless of what society thought.
And while the European model had a man being expected to have a mistress, in many African societies, polygamy is quite normal. They don’t need to have mistresses. They simply married as many wives as they were able. The men were thought of as virile and the women… well they married the guy didn’t they? So they had “a husband” and children which was what counted in many cases.
On relationships, without being too personal, I think that people too often go into them looking for what they can get from the other person. Do they make me laugh, are they wealthy enough (to take care of me or support children I want to have) are from the “right background”, do they have the”right job” etc, etc. They go into them needy, which is a problem from the start. From my experience the freedom I have in our relationship is from letting each other be who we are, yet learning from each other - and really looking out for each other in every that counts, committed to each other. When we both give, we create something totally different and great.
I think what Dr. Kortsch said about where relationship problems stem from was right on and I believe you think so too.
“Our needs get us into most relationship problems. We seek out people, consciously or unconsciously, that fulfill our needs, rather than filling our needs ourselves.”
This was something that you demonstrated a clear understanding of when you said:
“From my experience the freedom I have in our relationship is from letting each other be who we are, yet learning from each other - and really looking out for each other in every that counts, committed to each other. “
This subject of proper relationship to your spouse has caused some consternation for me as someone who does not have a spouse, and is currently not in a relationship. It makes a lot of sense, when in one, to say that you have to give the other space, and not expect them to fulfill your needs.
But what if you are searching for someone? Who do you look for?
By this concept, I should be able to love anybody, be in a relationship with anyone. It certainly seems to suggest that. Do I look for someone who enjoys the same activities? No, because I cannot expect them to be my partner in them. Do I look for someone who balances my personality? No, because I should seek that balance in myself.
And here’s where the concept really comes up short–the two things I cannot fulfill for myself–a sexual partner and wife of future children. Try as I might, I could not possibly fill these “holes” on my own.
I can be friendly to everyone, but not everyone’s friend.
I can love everyone, but cannot be everyone’s lover.
So how do I choose, or how do I know, or how do I discover, who I should “settle down with.” Because if one thing is certain, both from personal experience and based on others’ advice, that initial chemistry is not enough of a guide.
Seeking your insights…
[...] blog posts - Relationships: Transformation and Commitment Improve Your Sex Life Plan a Separate [...]
@nathan
You say: “Do I look for someone who enjoys the same activities? No, because I cannot expect them to be my partner in them.”
My husband and I both took up kayaking together. I loved the paddling and the closeness to nature. I hated getting out of the kayak underwater. This is a must to be able to do in case of trouble. I hated the thought of having to struggle out again so much I came near to developing a water phobia. I chose to leave kayaking and instead I took up hiking.
In our relationship we do not expect on each other to join in everything we do. We have some hobbies that we pursue alone. In other marriages I have seen disintegrate before my very eyes one or both partners insisted that they do everything together.
You indicate that your need a wife for two reasons sex and babies.
Neither sex nor babies are relationship requirements. They are optional. My husband and I agreed to remain childfree. We do not have sex for the purpose of procreation. And if we chose not to have sex at all we would still have a committed relationship.
Most folks pretty much know. When it hits it hits. But looking for it you never find it. Heck I need to get out more:)
Hmmm … that’s an interesting point. Granted that looking for a partner may not produce results. Granted that getting out more and living your life fully will bring you into contact with more potential partners. However, the cyber world provides another resource to locate potential partners and create a relationship based on mutual complementarity rather than on need.
Clearly Britgirl has succeeded in finding a loving partner online that complements her rather than “completing” her and so has Adam.
Last year I scoffed internet romance but this year I’m much wiser. I think the internet offers expanded opportunities for narrowing the field when it comes to finding a partner that will encourage and support individuality, independence and commitment within a loving relationship.
I certainly do think that the conventional model does not work very well as a mechanism for finding satisfying partners. By the conventional model I mean getting dressed up to the nines, over indulging on drugs and alchohol, and getting off on loud music
Now while I love all that stuff I would not think it likely you would ever bump into a soul mate that way if that is what you wanted 
But call me old fashioned 
Thanks for the feedback.
Root, I agree, but unfortunately, that’s what we’ve got. Actually, most people, I think, meet their eventual partners through friends. I’m sure the internet is filling a void for meaningful conversation as we become more alienated from our communities due to mobility. I, for one, wish that some of the old cultural institutions that brought men and women together still existed. “Looking for it you never find it” is a fallacy. At some point, when you meet someone you like, you have to make a move, especially if you’re a guy. (Even in our egalitarian world, some facts of nature still exist, for the most part.)
My guess is I just have to keep going from one to the next until I meet one I feel like keeping around for the rest of my life. I suppose there’s some fun to be had in the search.
Best wishes to you Nathan and thanks for taking the time to continue the dialog.