Personality Cafe banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,886 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Even though it is fairly unrealistic that I could be the only one for someone romantically, I find that it is a desire that I have to be that person in a relationship. The object of desire maybe. Is this kind of a universal thing? Even though, yes, an individual could possibly be happy in a relationship with many different potential people. Even though you may or will be attracted to other people outside of the relationship. Do you want to have boundaries for this? Feel free to elaborate if you'd like or expand on various questions...How do you justify and maintain that your relationship be steady? Is there some kind of level of differentiation? Perhaps you do not agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,010 Posts
I want to be an object of desire. Can't deny it. Does turn me on.

If it's an exclusive deal I have to consider a few things first. Main point: "Is it practical to maintain from my side?"

If exclusivity can't be maintained in an obviously easy way I won't enter the exclusivity deal in the first place. Once the deal is entered I'll honor it until it's not practical anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hollow Man

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,428 Posts
No, I don't have that want, and I think it would be a selfish want because my hypothetical partner could end up miserably lonely if she ever lost me.
The object of desire maybe.
A person can be an object of desire without being the only possible object of desire.
How do you justify and maintain that your relationship be steady?
You find someone who is willing to commit to monogamy and work on building a mutually satisfying relationship.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,873 Posts
Yes ofcourse just :

Don't be clingy

Don't be dramatic

Get your own life

Be sweet

Be a sex goddess

Try to be someone who got away xDD

Then leave lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
If I can call the relationship romantic, yes. I also considered it unrealistic, but can't help when I have feelings for someone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
Me? no. We live in a world where there are many things and people satisfying our needs, in many ways being the only one and center of... is not healthy. I'm not sure about this in romantic interests, even on sex, doesn't mean peple should go ahead, but inside their mind freedom in many areas should be possible. I have problems explaining this but I just can't relate with such concepts. Also, I don't have the "me, mine" thing, yes I can love and have been on monogamic relationships but still I don't have the "me mine" trait so I don't expect the other person to live life like this towards me.

I see a lot of people have trouble with this. I hope my partner to be loyal and faithful to me, just like I'm focused on this person, but that doesn't mean I expect us to be the only ones for each other. The wording alone makes people think about cheating, I can't understand it, it means people are just too afraid of not being the only ones. It's like being a friend, I'm not worried about being a good one, I just work on it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,886 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
No, I don't have that want, and I think it would be a selfish want because my hypothetical partner could end up miserably lonely if she ever lost me.
Great point! Hmmm...I think this is one part of the problem of feeling like you want to "everything" to someone. There's should be more roundness and love to go towards other things and yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,734 Posts
Indeed that I want such a thing.

Is it universal? No. I've had plenty of friends over the years who have said to me that they don't have such desire -which is why they were in open relationships and a bunch of other different dynamics.

I've never had to put boundaries on myself for anything. My supposed boundaries happen naturally, effortlessly, I'm extremely single-focused and don't get distracted by shiny people or greener-grasses-on-the-other-side. But that's just me. Other people function differenly. There's nothing universal, it's personal.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,154 Posts
I want that in some ways, for some reasons.

I think that choice is a really important concept. To know someone actively chooses to be in a relationship with you, not because they 'have' to for survival, or because they are settling since nothing better's come up, or because you are similar to their first choice. But to be wholeheartedly enthusiastic about choosing their partner and happy about the amount of energy dedicated to maintaining that relationship.

It's not something people can be forced to feel--but yes, I would want to be with a partner who's first choice is to be with me, and who is enthusiastic about me as a partner.

It's a huge turn off (to me) to feel like you're just someone who someone's settling on, or they would prefer to be somewhere else. Or you are a stepping stone, that they wait with until something better comes along. I also wouldn't want to be in a relationship like that.

It's much more fun to be in a place where everyone wants to be and is able to focus their energy on improving and enjoying that 'environment,' because they really want and choose to be there above other possibilities. It means both people are satisfied and also confident in their ability to maintain that.

I guess an analogy would be like a vacation--are you enjoying it enough that you don't wish you are anywhere else? Or are you being a sourpuss because you're busy imagining being anywhere but there. I would rather be on a vacation I enjoy, with someone who is also enjoying it. That it is where we choose to be, enthusiastically. And relationships are more personal than vacations--and are not fun all the time, but still I expect for my partner to have chosen it wholeheartedly, rather than it taking away from what they would choose. I don't want a relationship to be a disservice to me or anyone I'm in one with.

When I think of romantic love, as a concept, though--I can't really define it. It seems to be one part emotion (so not choice), another part choice, and then some element of 'fate' is usually involved...perhaps the 'fate' can tie back with the emotions, but I think it could also include just circumstances in the world. That they would be in balance...the 'choice' and the 'fate.' Relationships are rocky and I think they require that element of choice and dedication, but there is also an emotional and value related motivation there that is more outside of one's control and commonly attributed to 'fate' or some unknown influence.

Ok idk...But yeah, I have wanted that. I think it needs to be reasonable though, and the good motivations defined. Like wanting one's partner and ones self to be satisfied and where they want to be in life, and having the relationship be a positive influence on both people--more freeing than hindering. I like to think of it as a journey, and both partners should be wanting to go on it together (go the same way, towards the same thing).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
Most certainly. I daresay it would be much harder for a relationship to survive long-term if my significant other is busy looking at other men.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,256 Posts
Ideally, I'd want to be the only one.

I've been told many times my wishes are unrealistic and idealistic and should give them up in order to find a partner, but I don't think so. I exist, I'm not that unique, other person with similar desires and wishes and thoughts must exist as well. We just haven't met yet, and if we don't meet, then I'll unfortunately be alone, which is better than compromising in this matter and being in unhappy relationship - I have experienced that and have no desire to do so again.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
Even though it is fairly unrealistic that I could be the only one for someone romantically, I find that it is a desire that I have to be that person in a relationship. The object of desire maybe. Is this kind of a universal thing? Even though, yes, an individual could possibly be happy in a relationship with many different potential people. Even though you may or will be attracted to other people outside of the relationship. Do you want to have boundaries for this? Feel free to elaborate if you'd like or expand on various questions...How do you justify and maintain that your relationship be steady? Is there some kind of level of differentiation? Perhaps you do not agree.
:nonchalance: So, If I want my monogamous partner to be 'monogamous' - or the 'only one' / object of (X)-humanoids sexual arousal (?) The latter does not necessarily demonstrate 'lack of monogamy' unless the monogamy has been breached itself.

Rather indicates serially monogamous primates with opportunistic poly tendencies varying among individuals - (re: multiple one-'partners' in ones lifetime + ability to 'bond' with more than just one specimen in ones lifetime) & healthy responses or 'attractions' to external-reflexive sexual stimuli (re: healthy fertility / recognization of beauty / symmerties & aesthetics), normal brain-pattern recognition.

_______

'Poly' seems to be culturally trending among early (sexually-promiscuity / hormonally-elevated) 2000's millennials sans certain religious sects - (exceptions to the rule), indulging in reckless sexual activity. Neither "poly" or 'monogamy' is universal any more than cultural / normative 'rules' are. Both behavioral preference(s) have been demonstrated among human-primates; with strong indication(s) of reflexive [monogamous pair-bonding] preferred to the latter as more (psychologically / biologically) optimizing / feasible for the participants (re: sexual promiscuity). It seems a majority of specimen(s) are opposed to sexual promiscuity perhaps instinctively due to it correlating with severe mental-dysfunction(s) via psychopathology (e.g., untreated personality / mood disorders + mania + other imbalances).
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top