Comfort vs Friction

[ThaWholigan]

Said this in too many threads to not make this into a thread - plus I can't sleep.

 

Basically, my theory on relationship dynamics is a loose generalization that I make. I very rarely make them as I don't tend to stereotype based on behavior too often, but it's a loose enough one that I feel comfortable making.

 

So when it comes to most things in life - particularly relationships - there are 2 types of people:

 

People who thrive on comfort and people who thrive on friction. Now the former are basically people whereby if you put them in an environment that facilitates ease, simplicity and a structure that gives freedom to be comfortable, they will thrive and succeed under such a platform. There are a lot of people like this who seem to do better under these conditions. In relationships, they prefer to be with people who complement them pleasantly and are slightly more easygoing. Probably prefers nights in together with the DVD and pizza (another stereotype there!). Basically, they don't do things that make them uncomfortable, and relationships that are easy suit them down to the ground.

 

The latter, on the other hand, are people who thrive in difficult situations, or seem to succeed in the face of challenges, plateaus and frustration. They relish the prospect of obstacles and problem-solving for the purpose of growth. And in relationships, these are the people who prefer to be with a partner who "challenges" them on some level, who provides some less compatible elements with which to provide that unexplainable "spark". Of course, this depends on their hard boundaries, but generally it's usually the imperfections of the relationship that add color. Now there are positive manifestation of a friction-laden relationship, but most people probably only remember the negatives - constant drama and "game-playing" often gets brought up by people who say they don't seek it, whether they thrive on either comfort or friction.

 

To sort of contradict my own argument here, it's my objective belief that comfort and friction exist coexist on two different ends of a continuum, and that people occupy different spots on that continuum. So some people will require more comfort than friction, and others vice versa, but in order to maintain balance you will still need at least some of the other element in order to provide.......well, spark . I don't think anyone could be in a completely easygoing relationship with no friction whatsoever - that could lead to stagnation on the part of the people involved and bring about resentment. Likewise, nobody could be in a relationship that is full of frustration every few minutes as you're likely to end up giving each other strokes or hating each other.

 

I think that going into relationships understanding that part of yourself and what you respond to is very important going forward. People might tend to tell themselves one thing but know they respond to another (both genders do this) because they are somewhat fearful of admitting to certain things that get them going or at least give them strength. Conversely, there are those who may get a kick out of challenge in other areas of their lives but prefer an easy relationship when at home, and even scarcer still, those who prefer the opposite.

 

But nonetheless, I think that understanding the dynamic of comfort and friction goes someway to navigating the power games that can often occur in dating.

[Danda]

Well, the theory seems to be slightly biased from the outset. If we were to reverse the bias, instead of calling it "comfort vs friction" we could call it "boring vs exciting" as an example. "Comfort vs friction" with the details given implies that challenge is uncomfortable, or that all 'games' are immature and/or sinister in nature.

 

What if there are actually two different factors at play, each with their own spectrum, like:

 

The Comfort Scale

(and)

The Stimulation Scale

 

To me comfort is a matter of how 'good' (for lack of a less vague term) one feels in the relationship, or perhaps 'at ease' would be a bit more accurate.

 

But stimulation in a relationship can come in various forms (sexual, intellectual, humor, etc).

 

Someone might attempt to up the "stimulation" in their relationship by playing stupid-ass jealousy games, and wind up causing a massive dip on the "comfort" scale without actually increasing the "stimulation" at all. Could call this simply a FAIL.

 

On the other hand, someone might attempt to up the "stimulation" by busting out new moves (romantic, sexual, etc) towards their partner, which might not only increase the "stimulation" but also up the "comfort" scale a notch or two, given the underlying reassurance of interest. Could call that a WIN.

 

It also demonstrates, though, that what type of stimulation one thrives off of can vary by the individual, for sure. If someone's idea of "stimulation" is "friction" then chances are they just have some PD issues goin on and thrive on mutual dysfunction and "drama". But even the homebody who wants to stay home Friday night, cuddle up on the coach and watch Netflix with his/her SO still desires that form of stimulation. If his/her SO went out to part every Friday night and left them alone on the coach, no affection, no conversation, no sex, no nothing - then chances are this homebody type would eventually start wondering why the **** they are even in this relationship.

 

Comfort seems to come from things like.. knowing you can trust the person, knowing you have honest communication going on, knowing they are genuinely into you, etc. When a person derives their "stimulation" from ****ing all of that up, well that's just dysfunctional bull**** right there. Perhaps in their dysfunction they place stimulation and comfort as one on the same scale together, and hence the ensuing dysfunction.

 

And if you ever try to forge a romantic relationship with such a dysfunctional piece of work, then you could very well wind up making the association yourself when approaching future relationships. But it's something that you'd probably wanna work on undoing in your brain. Dysfunction is contagious as **** like that, so gotta take care not to let it rub off on ya.

 

That's how I see it, anyway.

[ThaWholigan]

Well, the theory seems to be slightly biased from the outset. If we were to reverse the bias, instead of calling it "comfort vs friction" we could call it "boring vs exciting" as an example. "Comfort vs friction" with the details given implies that challenge is uncomfortable, or that all 'games' are immature and/or sinister in nature.

 

What if there are actually two different factors at play, each with their own spectrum, like:

 

The Comfort Scale

(and)

The Stimulation Scale

 

To me comfort is a matter of how 'good' (for lack of a less vague term) one feels in the relationship, or perhaps 'at ease' would be a bit more accurate.

 

But stimulation in a relationship can come in various forms (sexual, intellectual, humor, etc).

 

Someone might attempt to up the "stimulation" in their relationship by playing stupid-ass jealousy games, and wind up causing a massive dip on the "comfort" scale without actually increasing the "stimulation" at all. Could call this simply a FAIL.

 

On the other hand, someone might attempt to up the "stimulation" by busting out new moves (romantic, sexual, etc) towards their partner, which might not only increase the "stimulation" but also up the "comfort" scale a notch or two, given the underlying reassurance of interest. Could call that a WIN.

 

It also demonstrates, though, that what type of stimulation one thrives off of can vary by the individual, for sure. If someone's idea of "stimulation" is "friction" then chances are they just have some PD issues goin on and thrive on mutual dysfunction and "drama". But even the homebody who wants to stay home Friday night, cuddle up on the coach and watch Netflix with his/her SO still desires that form of stimulation. If his/her SO went out to part every Friday night and left them alone on the coach, no affection, no conversation, no sex, no nothing - then chances are this homebody type would eventually start wondering why the **** they are even in this relationship.

 

Comfort seems to come from things like.. knowing you can trust the person, knowing you have honest communication going on, knowing they are genuinely into you, etc. When a person derives their "stimulation" from ****ing all of that up, well that's just dysfunctional bull**** right there. Perhaps in their dysfunction they place stimulation and comfort as one on the same scale together, and hence the ensuing dysfunction.

 

And if you ever try to forge a romantic relationship with such a dysfunctional piece of work, then you could very well wind up making the association yourself when approaching future relationships. But it's something that you'd probably wanna work on undoing in your brain. Dysfunction is contagious as **** like that, so gotta take care not to let it rub off on ya.

 

That's how I see it, anyway.

I think that's a good way of looking at it - I can't say I view either as a bad thing personally. See, challenge is uncomfortable for a lot of people but generally it's a necessary part of life and some people thrive on it more than others IMO. And I take your point that what's stimulation and comfort go hand-in-hand. However, that does play to my theory - that some people are stimulated by comfort, by romance and all things nice etc and sometimes a little spontaneity goes a long way aswell. That tiny bit of "friction as it were". Some need more friction than others and I don't think that's necessarily always "drama" or PD issues. Some people get turned on by a hearty debate about something they disagree on, doesn't mean they have an issue IMO.

 

I had thought I outlined that most people consider "friction" to be equal to dysfunction when it's not always the case, but clearly I didn't do a very good job!

[somedude81]

There definitely has to be a balance between comfort vs friction. Too much comfort is boring, and too much friction just leads to a lot of conflict and hurt feelings.

 

I like a girl who is not afraid to challenge me but not somebody who is just looking for a fight. I don't enjoy playing games.

[MissBee]

I don't see comfort and boring as synonymous or friction and excitement as synonymous either. I have had boring and friction and exciting and comfortable together.

 

I require challenge, in the sense that I'm an intellectual and curious person at heart and how I live my life and how my mind works is that I am always looking to learn and experience new things, ideas, places, food etc. I like to think critically, question things, I'm not the type just comfortable with the world as is who is happy to mindlessly go along with everything so need a man who is visionary, who can ask me questions, force me to think about things deeply or differently, if I have a problem I want him to be able to offer a sensible and different side to it, I want us to be able to intellectually spar and for him to challenge me to grow positively. That to me is exciting....but maybe not what I'd call friction.

 

With my last bf for example, he was boring and that boring was uncomfortable and led to friction, mainly because we were not on the same wavelength intellectually. We had fun together in a superficial sense but in terms of intellectually and the depth I require to be hungry for more, which is the main thing for me, I was uninspired by him, it was obvious I was way more advanced in my thinking than he was and if I disagreed with him he'd quickly concede or act like any disagreement was a problem and said he didn't like to "argue." To me that was such a turn off as it was really that he was intellectually lazy and not that curious so any thinking beyond necessary or outside of his field (engineering) was tiresome to him and I HATED that. It's one thing to argue about the relationship or each other but I need a man who doesn't mind me arguing with his thoughts on things in the world, and my last bf lacked that. He never really said anything I found that interesting. Nothing that made me stop and think hmmm...how about that? I never thought of that before. It was just very simplistic, borderline naive thinking most of the time or he lacked knowledge of many things I felt were very basic that frustrated me and caused lots of friction. I HATED it. If I married him I would be bored out of my mind and annoyed most of the time but he was dependable...but I would have never been in love with him, inspired by him, growing with him...the relationship felt remedial for me, like I was his teacher but got nothing in return in terms of depth.

 

Comfort and challenge go hand in hand for me. I want someone I am at home with, who I can be myself with, who is consistent and reliable but who is challenging in that I want to be with him forever because I love how his mind works and we can be on road trips, in bed, cooking, on the phone and can just talk and talk and think together. Someone interested in how I think, in my work, who will ask me hard questions, where their approach to life is inspiring to me and causes me to want to do better and be better, where I can respect them as a person in their own right who has a life, interests, thoughts that are theirs and who I can learn from. I need us to have compatible values and worldviews foremost, not where on fundamental issues we clash, but where in other things we can push each other to grow.

 

I've definitely learned what the drama and spark and friction of incompatibility mixed with emotional unavailability feels like and I don't like it. I want compatibility and comfort and good challenge.

Edited December 26, 2014 by MissBee

[ThaWholigan]

I think I'm being completely misunderstood here - I don't think it's an "either or" situation. As I've said, objectively speaking most people are on particular parts of the continuum whereby they need a combination of comfort and friction - but that there are those who need more of one than the other.

 

I also don't see comfort as boring, simply that some people do not necessarily thrive on comfort and may see it as "boring". That doesn't make it synonymous, but maybe only in the minds of those who prefer less comfort. Maybe comfort is the wrong word, but it is the word that conveys ease the most.

 

Most people do require a combination of the two, some will require comfort more than most. Perhaps even a majority will believe they do. And some will require more friction.

[MissBee]

I think I'm being completely misunderstood here - I don't think it's an "either or" situation. As I've said, objectively speaking most people are on particular parts of the continuum whereby they need a combination of comfort and friction - but that there are those who need more of one than the other.

 

I also don't see comfort as boring, simply that some people do not necessarily thrive on comfort and may see it as "boring". That doesn't make it synonymous, but maybe only in the minds of those who prefer less comfort. Maybe comfort is the wrong word, but it is the word that conveys ease the most.

 

Most people do require a combination of the two, some will require comfort more than most. Perhaps even a majority will believe they do. And some will require more friction.

 

I can agree with this.

 

I wasn't misunderstanding you, I think I was just posing my personal ideas about where I fall in that continuum and how I view it for myself.

 

When I was younger I think I thrived on more friction mainly because of not realizing the issues I had about intimacy and emotional availability and that was a very different thing from good challenge. Now I know the difference so still require challenge but not the friction of incompatibility and fighting an uphill battle but throwing in the highs of sexual chemistry and calling it love.

 

Perhaps it's that on the spectrum one end should be friction and the other non-friction versus comfort. I guess with all theories you have to play around with the precision of terms to find ones which best (though nothing will be perfect) conceptualize what you're saying.

[ThaWholigan]

I can agree with this.

 

I wasn't misunderstanding you, I think I was just posing my personal ideas about where I fall in that continuum and how I view it for myself.

 

When I was younger I think I thrived on more friction mainly because of not realizing the issues I had about intimacy and emotional availability and that was a very different thing from good challenge. Now I know the difference so still require challenge but not the friction of incompatibility and fighting an uphill battle but throwing in the highs of sexual chemistry and calling it love.

 

Perhaps it's that on the spectrum one end should be friction and the other non-friction versus comfort. I guess with all theories you have to play around with the precision of terms to find ones which best (though nothing will be perfect) conceptualize what you're saying.

 

Absolutely. It does need fleshing out, but it's helped me in terms of being able to read patterns of behavior, for sure.

 

I think we'll all have teething problems when it comes to finding out exactly what combination it is we respond to the most, and how to find positive manifestations of it. As you say, you believed you needed more of a challenge but it probably became more of a chore than a partnership. When there's just incompatibility and friction for the sake of it with no release whatsoever then it's never going to work. Because - and I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here with my own theory - as we have our own cycle of behavior relating to friction/non-friction (I like that!), the relationship takes on energy of it's own, having it's own cycle in the process.

 

I've long believed relationships have a cycle of friction/non-friction(comfort) itself, ebbing and flowing. You have your supercharged honeymoon period, then you settled down into a more comfortable rhythm. Then more friction builds up, then you go back to square 1. Navigating this can be difficult for a lot of people, hence why loveshack exists! . So imagine you have two people together who are more friction-oriented. When the relationship reaches a lull period and the flame gets softer, will either of them be able to change gear to reflect the period of the relationship where the tension decreases? I'd imagine that if they are aware of their own process and are able to find a balance, then it's no question that they will.

 

Obviously, you can see my theory is still beta!

[Shepp]

I figure this is why a lot of people find mine and my wife's relationship to be an odd one! I had plenty of people tell me they found it hard to understand why we were such good friends before we even started dating...

I'm your easy going, laid back, pizza and a film (or preferably the footie ) guy. Whereas she's more spontaneous, always up to something, fiesty as hell, whirlwind.

But see without her my world would be..a duller place - she's my firecracker. But at the same time who'd pick up the pieces and smooth out the ripples and deal with all the details if she didn't have me.

 

I reckon a relationship where both parties are of the friction stance as you put it would combust. Just wouldn't work.

Likewise two partners from the comfort zone would lose their spark.

I reckon you need a little if each...

 

...which I guess is back to the age old 'opposites attract'

[MissBee]

Absolutely. It does need fleshing out, but it's helped me in terms of being able to read patterns of behavior, for sure.

 

I think we'll all have teething problems when it comes to finding out exactly what combination it is we respond to the most, and how to find positive manifestations of it. As you say, you believed you needed more of a challenge but it probably became more of a chore than a partnership. When there's just incompatibility and friction for the sake of it with no release whatsoever then it's never going to work. Because - and I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here with my own theory - as we have our own cycle of behavior relating to friction/non-friction (I like that!), the relationship takes on energy of it's own, having it's own cycle in the process.

 

I've long believed relationships have a cycle of friction/non-friction(comfort) itself, ebbing and flowing. You have your supercharged honeymoon period, then you settled down into a more comfortable rhythm. Then more friction builds up, then you go back to square 1. Navigating this can be difficult for a lot of people, hence why loveshack exists! . So imagine you have two people together who are more friction-oriented. When the relationship reaches a lull period and the flame gets softer, will either of them be able to change gear to reflect the period of the relationship where the tension decreases? I'd imagine that if they are aware of their own process and are able to find a balance, then it's no question that they will.

 

Obviously, you can see my theory is still beta!

 

It's a good theory to start with!

 

I think that all relationships do have the ebb and flow and periods of friction and non-friction, simply because of our own rhythms and behaviors as you say as well as the fact that no matter how compatible in relationships we're still dealing with different people with their own ideas, goals, moods, desires which will sometimes be at odds or be in sync as the rhythm goes.

 

I think though, that the ebbs and flows of healthy relationships are one aspect and then there is the friction in terms of people choosing folks who fundamentally are so different from them that the relationship itself is built on friction...not just the regular ebbs and flows that even the most compatible experience, but where the major theme in the relationship is friction.

 

As an example, I have a friend who has been with the same guy for about 7 years now and their relationship has been full of friction (i.e. drama) the ENTIRE time. They break up every other month, they fight in public, he pops up announced, harasses her friends about what she's doing, she does the same, they cyber stalk each other, as well as real life stalk, they call each other's families and have arguments with the family members, and every other day she would cry about how she's so done and she deserves more and how much better than him she was (we were in college, she's currently in med school and her bf to this day I don't know what he does as last I heard he got fired from his retail job because he was rude)...then the next week they are hand in hand and not a peep is uttered about how things are over. This was a monthly affair. Everyday it was some new drama and we were roommates for a year so I had front row seats to it. Frankly, we all got tired of it, especially since many of us took the time to listen to her, to wipe her tears and to offer advice, only to have her turn on us when we'd be shocked that she was going back to him. She eventually lost a lot of friends as her friction-filled relationship took a toll on us and I started to realize that she must enjoy this on some level...as years later they are still together even though it's one drama after the other. Her case in my mind is one where this isn't the normal ebbs and flows of the relationship but where the ENTIRE thing is built on and fueled by friction and that is what she needs to feel like it is worth something. I don't think for her it is challenge in terms of the positive self-growth kind (which is what I mean when I say I want a challenge) but more so the highs one feel because of all that friction and drama.

 

From what I know of them and what she says, I truly doubt their relationship could survive outside of the friction, as without it, she realizes they have nothing in common or nothing substantial holding them together. The drama is the only thing they're living on...and I think in some ways that's scary for her esp given how much she's invested. I think relationships like that are about intimacy issues too, like I mentioned with me, where with all that friction you truly never ever get very close to the person. Yes you may have a superficial sense of closeness because you have make-up sex or can say "we've been through so much [drama of our own making]" but it's never truly a genuinely open and intimate relationship where you can grow when it is friction 24/7...and it seems like when things quiet down and you can possibly start to be real and be vulnerable you turn on the friction again to start the pull and pull cycle of drama as an almost diversion from intimacy where this fake intimacy is in its place instead of fighting and pulling and then "making up."

Edited December 27, 2014 by MissBee

[autumnnight]

This is very interesting, and Shepp's post makes it even more interesting. I do think there is an ebb and flow of both in relationships, and in relationships like Shepp's where they have found a way to capitalize on their differences, well, I have to say I am a little envious of that.

 

I think in my failed LTR we started out as both pretty comfortable? That was before we married, and I had challenges from other sources maybe? I don't know. After awhile his continued comfort because a source of friction for me. His definition of happy was "peaceful with no conflict and no demands." Mine was connection and intimacy, which requires some effort and, yes, occasional discomfort. The chasm between our continuums became so painfully wide we couldn't reach across it anymore. That still makes me sad.

[Tayken]

Mine was connection and intimacy, which requires some effort and, yes, occasional discomfort. The chasm between our continuums became so painfully wide we couldn't reach across it anymore. That still makes me sad.

 

So what is there a course of action, moving forward to rectify this from repeating itself?

[Taramere]

Some need more friction than others and I don't think that's necessarily always "drama" or PD issues. Some people get turned on by a hearty debate about something they disagree on, doesn't mean they have an issue IMO.

 

I had thought I outlined that most people consider "friction" to be equal to dysfunction when it's not always the case, but clearly I didn't do a very good job!

 

 

There are forms of stimulation as mentioned Danda which are almost universally viewed in positive terms. Spicing things up sexually, cooking new dishes, visiting foreign countries etc. But those are all treats rather than friction. I would see "friction" more as referring to conflict.

 

I'm never quite sure where I stand on conflict. In some ways I'd see myself as conflict avoidant, but then there are times I sort of seek it out. However, I don't seek it out for relationship destroying purposes. More, as you put it, in terms of having a healthy debate. When somebody disagrees with you, they give you the opportunity of considering things from a different perspective, which contributes to personal growth.

 

The problem is that it isn't easy to find people you can have that particular dynamic with. There are times I've connected with people as a result of disagreeing with them. The connection happened, I think, because when you discover somebody you can disagree with in a way that's informative, friendly and ends with you feeling that your perspective has been broadened slightly, it's a really good feeling.

 

Creativity comes from conflict. All the best stories have some sort of conflict at their core. A lot of musicians create their greatest work at times of intense conflict. Both the best and the worst that life has to offer comes from some degree of conflict.