For the ladies, don't know who the author is.

[Pocky]

Originally posted by alphamale

Ever heard of politics or "office politics". No one says they enjoy playing politics but everyone does do it to some extent. Right? Well why don't you use the word "politics" instead of "games"?

 

relationship politics exist in any relationship between two or more individuals whether it is a blood relationship, office relationship, or romantic relationship;

 

That's a bad example - someone that is considered my peer and a possible threat to my employment and security is hardly comparable to someone I'm in a relationship with. I'm not competing with my lover for a raise, promotion, better office or any other "prize" found in the work place.

[lostinmyself]

Originally posted by alphamale

every relationship you ever had or will every have in your life will be a challenge and a game somewhat. if you are too naive to know that, then you deserve what you get. most women instinctually know this fact but many men do not.

 

I agree to an extent. I think all relationships are a challenge. If they weren't, we would all be bored to tears. I also agree that relationships are a game to some people. I have a vague knowledge of this going in. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

 

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

They might want someone who's a challenge and plays a little hard to get sometimes, but not someone who plays games. That's a sign of immaturity.

 

I agree. I've been playing his 'game' for 2 months now and I'm pretty well bored with it. Decided I'm just too old to play games anymore. Guess that's what I get for playing with a 25 year old. (I mean an apparently immature 25 year old.) No offense to 20-somethings in general.....

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by Pocky

That's a bad example - someone that is considered my peer and a possible threat to my employment and security is hardly comparable to someone I'm in a relationship with. I'm not competing with my lover for a raise, promotion, better office or any other "prize" found in the work place.

 

Agreed.

 

I don't think it's possible to "smother" someone if they love you as much as you love them. Smothering and "clingy-ness" happens when one person loves more than the other. They are unequally yoked.

 

It's not a game or politics to figure out that you need to back down and let them gradually come up to your level of love. I recognized that I needed to back down, but far, far too late. I will not make the same mistakes.

 

It's not a game to learn to pull the throttle back to idle.

It's not a game to be patient and see where your SO is headed.

 

It's not a game to be in love.

[alphamale]

Originally posted by Pocky

I'm not competing with my lover for a raise, promotion, better office or any other "prize" found in the work place.

You may not be competing with your lover but u are trying to get things from your lover, right? Love, attention, affection, security, etc....

 

Politics (or "games") come into play in every relationship that exists. This whole board called LS exists so that we can discuss relationship politics.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by alphamale

You may not be competing with your lover but u are trying to get things from your lover, right? Love, attention, affection, security, etc....

 

No alpha, that comes from picking the right person. Someone who loves you for who you are. If you have to play games or politics to get someone to love you, then when the real you shows up, you will again have problems.

 

That's why you see so many divorces. People play these stupid games to win a mate, only to lose them later when the REAL you comes shining through.

 

Politics (or "games") come into play in every relationship that exists. This whole board called LS exists so that we can discuss relationship politics.

 

No it's not. It's not politics we're discussing. It's basically a bunch of people discussing what went wrong in their relationships and eventually agreeing they picked the wrong person....

[guest]

Originally posted by Pocky

That's a bad example - someone that is considered my peer and a possible threat to my employment and security is hardly comparable to someone I'm in a relationship with. I'm not competing with my lover for a raise, promotion, better office or any other "prize" found in the work place.

 

 

 

I think what AlphaMale is trying to say is that people in love relationships, like any other relationships, jockey for position. The ideal would be everything is perfectly said and everyone is happy with agreements. However, that's not reality. Reality is going to the videostore and having to pick a movie to see together. Reality is people remembering how come I'm watching "A Room with a View" or "Big trouble in little China" for the tenth time. Reality is you do that because it makes the other person happy, but also so that when it's something really important to you, the other person will do the same.

 

Perhaps it's better to use the word adjustments instead of games or politics, but whatever it is called everyone does it.

 

And that's not even with kids.

[Pocky]

Originally posted by alphamale

You may not be competing with your lover but u are trying to get things from your lover, right? Love, attention, affection, security, etc....

 

Politics (or "games") come into play in every relationship that exists. This whole board called LS exists so that we can discuss relationship politics.

 

You know, you may want to switch the term politics with the term games and try and make it apply, but it really doesn't. Applying the term politics in this sense is defined as social relations involving authority or power. In defining the term game there is an element of competitiveness that must be present - this is not true for politics. Games is not a synonym of politics and you can't just switch the two.

 

You have to come up with a better comparison - the politics/games, office politics, relationship politics theory doesn't work.

[alphamale]

Originally posted by Pocky

Games is not a synonym of politics and you can't just switch the two.

from websters dictionary below is one of the definitions of "politics":

 

(used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.

[blind_otter]

I used to be a very active member on another message board and once considered myself "codependent".

 

I don't think it's possible to "smother" someone if they love you as much as you love them. Smothering and "clingy-ness" happens when one person loves more than the other. They are unequally yoked.

 

I disagree, because I have been in so many support groups and heard this from a number of therapists - it IS possible to be overly dependent on a relationship and clingy and smothering, even when you both love each other. And love is a quality, not a quantity. So measuring whether there is an "equal amount of love" is kind of unrealistic.

 

The idea is that if you have unhealthy or not well established boundaries in a relationship, or unrealistic ideas about what relationships are or "should be", you can seriously end up sabotaging yourself. I fear that, because you insist on these ideas, you will merely repeat the same pattern in your next relationship. This is something I have been working on with myself for quite a few years, still getting in and out of relationships with varying success.

 

I think there is a big problem in the west especially, with enmeshment. People have unhealthy relationships that fizzle out in a few years and such high rates of divorce, I think, because there is some bizarre, hollywood-esque expectation of total interpersonal enmeshment, when real love is the celebration of the fact that your lover sees the world differently and has a life outside of the relationship...it's when two people with separate lives, can come together harmoniously - rather than anxiously trying to be with your lover all the time. It's attractive when my man has his own life and his own things going on. It should be OK to spend your free time apart sometimes.

 

It's taken me a while to get to the point where having a partner with an independent life from me doesn't illicit some kind of feelings of anxiety. But an unhealthy expectation of enmeshment can lead to obsessive and clingy behavior in the context of the relationship.

 

I think, at least, and it's something I've been working on with a series of therapists (I've gone through several because the ones I had were inadequately trained, IMHO)

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by blind_otter

I disagree, because I have been in so many support groups and heard this from a number of therapists - it IS possible to be overly dependent on a relationship and clingy and smothering, even when you both love each other. And love is a quality, not a quantity. So measuring whether there is an "equal amount of love" is kind of unrealistic.

 

I didn't smother her. When I was with her, she had my attention. But she lives 75 miles away. I didn't see her for weeks at a time. Kind of hard to smother someone you aren't seeing all the time. We talked a lot online but not on the phone. I'm trying to figure out how I was clingy. Maybe because I liked kissing her and holding her hand and being romantic. Blah. That's me!

 

But if two people are deeply, passionately in love, how on earth could they be smothered?!

 

And by equal amount, I mean YOKED. If one is putting in more effort than another, it's definitely a sign of bad things.

 

The idea is that if you have unhealthy or not well established boundaries in a relationship, or unrealistic ideas about what relationships are or "should be", you can seriously end up sabotaging yourself. I fear that, because you insist on these ideas, you will merely repeat the same pattern in your next relationship. This is something I have been working on with myself for quite a few years, still getting in and out of relationships with varying success.

 

I will definitely be setting boundaries if I ever fall in love again. Even if she comes back to me, it won't be automatic or easy on her part to get me back. I won't be disrespected like that again.

 

I think there is a big problem in the west especially, with enmeshment. People have unhealthy relationships that fizzle out in a few years and such high rates of divorce, I think, because there is some bizarre, hollywood-esque expectation of total interpersonal enmeshment, when real love is the celebration of the fact that your lover sees the world differently and has a life outside of the relationship...it's when two people with separate lives, can come together harmoniously - rather than anxiously trying to be with your lover all the time. It's attractive when my man has his own life and his own things going on. It should be OK to spend your free time apart sometimes.

 

We spent a lot of free time apart. That's what I don't understand. I have hobbies and things I like to do. Working on my bikes, riding, music, hanging with friends. She has school and her hobbies as well. It's not like I was with her all the time. But when she came to my place, we did spend a lot of time together simply because it was one or two days out of the week.

 

It's taken me a while to get to the point where having a partner with an independent life from me doesn't illicit some kind of feelings of anxiety. But an unhealthy expectation of enmeshment can lead to obsessive and clingy behavior in the context of the relationship.

 

Agreed on that. I trusted her, gave her the space she wanted, and she walked away from me. That meant she was never mine to begin with and everyone said that a long time ago. I fought it because I loved her. I guess since she didn't feel the same way it's easy to feel "smothered." I expect the next person in my life to "have a life" and I will take things much more slowly.