Log in

No account? Create an account
There’s A Difference Between Satisfying And Stable. - The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal
May 25th, 2017
09:42 am


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
There’s A Difference Between Satisfying And Stable.

Marriages used to be about property and politics. Your families decided who’d benefit the most from this family merger, and then you were committed – not because you were happy, nobody really expected happiness, but because betrothal was a glorified business contract. Breaking it brought troubles for everyone. Best to tough it out.

The cultural legacy of that can be seen in the way we overvalue long-term relationships. Watch the way performers work a crowd: they’ll always ask a couple how long they’ve been married, and if the answer is sufficiently long, they’ll always relate that number breathlessly to the crowd: “Twenty-five years!” And the crowd will cheerfully applaud because these two people have been together a long time and long is good.

But stability comes in all forms, and only some of them include love.

Some twenty-five year relationships are the sort where they don’t really like each other, but they’ve learned to sort of slide past each other as much as possible. And if you watch, you’ll see the survival mechanisms for that: the half-listened to conversations, the eye-rolling shrug whenever someone notes something annoying about their partner, the weary willingness to do all of the chores their partner’s too incompetent or disinclined to do.

Some stability involves living almost separate lives, with two different friends groups because these two people want entirely different things. Some stability involves hanging out with each other because they don’t have any other friends, and going to a movie you hate with someone you don’t care for is still theoretically better than being alone.

Some stability involves great gaps in communication, the arguments you never have because if you open up that seal then this relationship is over. So you don’t discuss the kids you wanted, or the sex you wanted, or the life you wanted, because that would destroy this stability. Some stability involves constantly bickering about those unachievable goals, tossing the blame back and forth like a hot potato, a never-ending state of trench warfare.

Some stability involves shaping yourself to the role: breadwinner. Dutiful housewife. Business partner. Maybe you discovered at some point you didn’t want that role, but it’s better to carve off the parts of yourself that don’t fit than potentially rock the boat.

And a lot of stability involves confusing fondness for love. Human beings are hard-wired to form attachments to the things they rely on: soldiers have been known to sentimentally risk their lives in battle to rescue a bomb-defusing robot whose whole function was, literally, to stop them from risking their lives.

If you hang around someone for long enough, you often grow fond of them – maybe their quirks are irritating, but they are known quantities and you have discovered the workarounds. You’d miss them if they left, not necessarily because you like them, but because you’ve come to expect them – kind of like the way your new phone looks weird if you’ve lived with a phone with a crack in the screen for long enough.

But fondness isn’t love. It isn’t an active quantity. Fondness is just something that accretes like a tarnish on a penny, often arriving whether you’ve worked to get it or not. Love is a happy expectation, something that puts a spring in your step – fondness is just sinking back into the couch and realizing it hurts your back in the way that it’s always hurt your back, and the part of you that craves routine is happy for the hurt.

And you’ll see people in long-term relationships going, “I love them.” And while I’m not quite willing to write off fondness as not a form of love, I will say it’s one of the lower grades thereof. They don’t have a lot of love in these kinds of relationships.

What they have is stability. They know what’s going to happen today, and tomorrow, and the day after. It’s not great, but they’ve learned how to bear it. It’s going to stay this way for as long as they’re willing to stay, and leaving it might mean they get something worse.

And they get applause. People cheer. People are thrilled to meet people who’ve been together for so long because length is good, you’re supposed to stay together, it’s like being thin in that sometimes being thin is because you’re so goddamned sick you can’t eat but hey we all want thinness and we don’t care how we get it.

These people have stability.

They long for happiness.

Unfortunately, for them, in this circumstance, the one is the enemy of the other.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

This entry has also been posted at http://theferrett.dreamwidth.org/581910.html. You can comment here, or comment there; makes no never-mind by me.

(4 shouts of denial | Tell me I'm full of it)

Date:May 25th, 2017 06:11 pm (UTC)
I've been reading you long enough, and you've included enough conditional language (e.g., "in this circumstance") that I'm pretty certain this was not your intention, but it still feels like you're implying that there's a mutual exclusivity between love/happiness and stability. Which I don't think is the case.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree with what I believe is your main point, that longevity is overvalued.

[User Picture]
Date:May 26th, 2017 08:00 pm (UTC)
I agree with this assessment. And, I think it's worth pointing out that for some people, a stable relationship is important to their satisfaction in *other* areas of their life. I might not consider it all that great to be married to a douchey multimillionaire, but I might find the tradeoff to be well worth taking his yacht out every weekend, which ultimately makes my life satisfying. Sure the fact that I managed to put up with him in exchange for 25 years of yachting doesn't exactly make for a major relationship accomplishment, but who's to say I am wrong to prioritize personal satisfaction over relationship satisfaction?

Also, I deeply suspect that *most* stable relationships become unsatisfying at one point or another... it's just a question at that point of whether the couple will re-negotiate for mutual satisfaction, split, or continue on in this not-satisfying-but-stable third option we don't like to talk or think about.
[User Picture]
Date:May 31st, 2017 12:58 pm (UTC)
Ugh, yes. I stayed in a relationship longer than I should have because it was already so *established*. And sometimes I catch myself being wistful about what will never be - my grandparents were married 50+ years, my parents just celebrated their 42nd anniversary... and I, at almost-40, am not remarried, and that means I will probably never hit that milestone. Why do I care about it, other than this social convention that longer relationships are somehow successful ones?
[User Picture]
Date:May 31st, 2017 08:05 pm (UTC)
Some thoughts:

It's not too bad for a relationship to be stable but not particularly happy if it isn't particularly unhappy either.

Sometimes a person with multiple relationships will get more stability from one and more happiness from the other, and both relationships work and balance each other out.
The Ferrett's Domain Powered by LiveJournal.com