Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Telecaster68

Should your partner be the most important person in your life?

Recommended Posts

Telecaster68

The point to me is that you can't have a neutral position. If you have a partner, you've chosen them, and part of that choice is choosing to not be neutral.

But youre the one who males the choice are you not? Thats whu I mentioned before that from a personal stance, the answer of who you wish to put first comes from you. Its not the nature of the relationship that determines it.

Yes, but to me, one of the defining characteristics of a relationship partner in the sense we're discussing, is that they come first (apart from the parental illness/kids exceptions).

Sure, I'm choosing to define the relationship like that, but I was honestly shocked that this wasn't universally the case. I don't actually see why it's a primary relationship without that characteristic.

Nothing is universal, especially man made ideals. I understand how it can cause confusion to be used to seeing things in a certain matter and then finding out its not the same for everyone. This question is similar to when you mentioned the factors that every relationship had to have to be considered a real relationship,and I asked you to define your marriage by those same standards.

I'm not extrapolating from just my experience. Outside of aromantics, I've never come across the idea that your partner doesn't come before friends and family in most situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

More or less, yes they should. With the obvious caveats, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JAKQ7111

To most people, the two defining characteristics of a 'relationship' relationship is that you put that partner first, and you have sex with them exclusively. Those things don't make them better, just different.

I think those two "defining characteristics" are, quite frankly, a load of crap. If you and your partner are both enthusiastic about living your lives like that, far be it by me to judge you, but too many people force themselves to play by society's "rules", either because they think it's easier than doing what they really want, or because they don't know that there are other ways to live and express love, and that, to me, is not okay. People should be allowed to form any types of relationships they want, barring the safety and consent of everyone involved, and that's final. Society and its strict rules and binaries can kindly shove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

As you say, far be it from you to judge me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigellaseed

The Mother-in-law :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

No, I think it's ridiculous to pedestal a single person in your life to the detriment of all others. *prepares for attack*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

The point to me is that you can't have a neutral position. If you have a partner, you've chosen them, and part of that choice is choosing to not be neutral.

But youre the one who males the choice are you not? Thats whu I mentioned before that from a personal stance, the answer of who you wish to put first comes from you. Its not the nature of the relationship that determines it.

Yes, but to me, one of the defining characteristics of a relationship partner in the sense we're discussing, is that they come first (apart from the parental illness/kids exceptions).

Sure, I'm choosing to define the relationship like that, but I was honestly shocked that this wasn't universally the case. I don't actually see why it's a primary relationship without that characteristic.

Nothing is universal, especially man made ideals. I understand how it can cause confusion to be used to seeing things in a certain matter and then finding out its not the same for everyone. This question is similar to when you mentioned the factors that every relationship had to have to be considered a real relationship,and I asked you to define your marriage by those same standards.

I'm not extrapolating from just my experience. Outside of aromantics, I've never come across the idea that your partner doesn't come before friends and family in most situations.

To be fair, the people who are disagreeing are people, by and large, without relationships. That's not altogether surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

No, I think it's ridiculous to pedestal a single person in your life to the detriment of all others. *prepares for attack*

Why do you think that? Isn't that pretty much the definition of a monogamous relationship.

* rearranges artillery disposition *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

No, I think it's ridiculous to pedestal a single person in your life to the detriment of all others. *prepares for attack*

Why do you think that? Isn't that pretty much the definition of a monogamous relationship.

* rearranges artillery disposition *

I'm particularly confused by the "detriment" part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JAKQ7111

As you say, far be it from you to judge me.

I'm serious. If you and your partner live that way because you truly want to, that is fine. It's just when people feel obligated to live that way that I start having issues. It's like gender roles: In concept, and in enforcement thereof, I can't stand gender roles, but my parents, when they got engaged/married, both decided that they wanted to take up the "traditional" gender roles in the relationship, and in the family. They made the decision for themselves, and do not pressure others to make that same decision, which works out well for me, since I then knew that it was okay to come out to them as genderqueer. Same goes for "traditional" relationship dynamics: If you want to have that type of relationship, fine, just don't act like it's the "right" way to have a relationship, and don't pressure others to follow in your footsteps.

The point to me is that you can't have a neutral position. If you have a partner, you've chosen them, and part of that choice is choosing to not be neutral.

But youre the one who males the choice are you not? Thats whu I mentioned before that from a personal stance, the answer of who you wish to put first comes from you. Its not the nature of the relationship that determines it.

Yes, but to me, one of the defining characteristics of a relationship partner in the sense we're discussing, is that they come first (apart from the parental illness/kids exceptions).

Sure, I'm choosing to define the relationship like that, but I was honestly shocked that this wasn't universally the case. I don't actually see why it's a primary relationship without that characteristic.

Nothing is universal, especially man made ideals. I understand how it can cause confusion to be used to seeing things in a certain matter and then finding out its not the same for everyone. This question is similar to when you mentioned the factors that every relationship had to have to be considered a real relationship,and I asked you to define your marriage by those same standards.

I'm not extrapolating from just my experience. Outside of aromantics, I've never come across the idea that your partner doesn't come before friends and family in most situations.

To be fair, the people who are disagreeing are people, by and large, without relationships. That's not altogether surprising.

As a matter of fact, I am in a relationship at the moment, and have had several in my life. It was only when I tried to force myself into the "typical mono-relationship" box that I felt stifled/uncomfortable with the relationship dynamic. Since coming out, and living/dating on my terms, dating has been much easier for me. I actually went into further detail about this in the story I sent to you via PM, in case you haven't read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade Cross

The point to me is that you can't have a neutral position. If you have a partner, you've chosen them, and part of that choice is choosing to not be neutral.

But youre the one who males the choice are you not? Thats whu I mentioned before that from a personal stance, the answer of who you wish to put first comes from you. Its not the nature of the relationship that determines it.

Yes, but to me, one of the defining characteristics of a relationship partner in the sense we're discussing, is that they come first (apart from the parental illness/kids exceptions).

Sure, I'm choosing to define the relationship like that, but I was honestly shocked that this wasn't universally the case. I don't actually see why it's a primary relationship without that characteristic.

Nothing is universal, especially man made ideals. I understand how it can cause confusion to be used to seeing things in a certain matter and then finding out its not the same for everyone. This question is similar to when you mentioned the factors that every relationship had to have to be considered a real relationship,and I asked you to define your marriage by those same standards.

I'm not extrapolating from just my experience. Outside of aromantics, I've never come across the idea that your partner doesn't come before friends and family in most situations.

To be fair, the people who are disagreeing are people, by and large, without relationships. That's not altogether surprising.

True, I dont have a relationship but even if I had one, my position wouldn't change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

If you want to have that type of relationship, fine, just don't act like it's the "right" way to have a relationship, and don't pressure others to follow in your footsteps.

I wasn't. I was expressing my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Not So Impossible Girl

I dunno, I feel like out of all the people in his life, for the person I am dating I am not in first place for his affection. Granted, the kind of affection he gives me is very different from what he gives to his best friend, but I know and accept that there are many times where he would rather spend time with him best friend than me. But I am also in college and we've only been dating for a little over 6 months so it's not like we're going to get married or anything xD

I honestly would feel kinda weird about him seeing me as like, the most important person in his life, and that's probably because I don't reciprocate that attitude. To me, there is no 'most important person in my life'. Although, again, I am young and have a lot of energy for keeping multiple strong relationships. I'd probably say my mom is the most important person in my life, simply because my monetary comfort depends on her, and also she created me. After I'm a little older, I don't have a very good idea of how my relationships would go. I would much rather end up living in a house with a bunch of friends or romantic partners, rather than just live with one other person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JAKQ7111

If you want to have that type of relationship, fine, just don't act like it's the "right" way to have a relationship, and don't pressure others to follow in your footsteps.

I wasn't. I was expressing my opinion.

You said that those rules were what made a relationship serious, did you not? It also sounded like you were implying that other types of relationships were either not serious, or don't count as "real" relationships. Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption, but it is something I have heard many times before from many different people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
You said that those rules were what made a relationship serious, did you not?

No, I didn't.

And in my OP, I did specifically exclude polyamory from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JAKQ7111
You said that those rules were what made a relationship serious, did you not?

No, I didn't.

And in my OP, I did specifically exclude polyamory from this.

Fair enough, then. I do personally think that even monogamous relationships do not by definition have to take precedence over non-romantic relationships, but I can't exactly be an arbiter on that, since I'm not mono. I'll leave that up to the people who are monogamous to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rising Sun

If by partner what you mean is the person I care about the most and want to share my life with, yes, logically the partner should come first. But IMO, this has nothing to do with whether i'm attracted to the partner or not. Such a partner can be a BFF and the boyfriend / girlfriend goes after. Or the reverse. It depends really on how much I care about a specific person and whether i'm attracted to this person or not isn't a factor at all. I find how people suddenly care about someone much more just because of attraction quite baffling, and even sad...

But mostly, yep, partners come before family and friends as far as I'm concerned, and I'd expect my partner to do the same, and I'm perfectly happy for my friends and family to put their partners first (except for their kids).

Sounds like a big cultural difference I think. Because I've always seen children come first, and then parents, and the partner comes third. I've never seen parents come after the partner, at least on long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

I would say that a spouse clearly outranks my sister, for example, but someone I've been on a few dates with clearly does not. For the record, I've never been married and I'm on good terms with my sister. I don't think use of the word "relationship" automatically implies that the person I'm dating now outranks my sister. If I thought so, I would have to think long and hard and have a lengthy discussion with the person I was dating before using that word. If that was what I meant by that word I would do well to tell them so and clarify that they are using the same definition. Marriage is a big deal because then you actually spell things out and take vows in public and sign contracts. If you're not even engaged things are much more ambiguous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

That's why I used 'partner' - a spouse, or spouse-esque person, rather than someone you've just had a few dates with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

At what stage of the relationship does the shift take place? Is it a formal thing? Does it definitely happen for both people at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

To explain then, I find it strange (unhealthy actually) to obsess over one person that much that everyone else is shoved to the sidelines. Sure, you're gonna like some more than others, but effectively saying they're "lesser" to another is just a bit wrong to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

At what stage of the relationship does the shift take place? Is it a formal thing? Does it definitely happen for both people at the same time?

Gradual, in my experience. Formally, I guess with marriage. And, no, probably not.

Sure, you're gonna like some more than others, but effectively saying they're "lesser" to another is just a bit wrong to me.

If no one's less important, why not marry everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

That's a bit of a silly slippery slope argument, Tar. I did say that I prefer some to others, but they are still all equal in different ways. I just don't understand why you would look to one person for all your personal needs. I love my mam, dad and auntie equally but I chose to live with my dad because I always knew he'd be the better parent to live with, but I talk more about personal stuff with my mam, yet I am probably closest overall with my auntie. I don't try to put my dad on the pedestal just because I chose to live with him, everyone else is equally important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

That's a bit of a silly slippery slope argument, Tar. I did say that I prefer some to others, but they are still all equal in different ways. I just don't understand why you would look to one person for all your personal needs. I love my mam, dad and auntie equally but I chose to live with my dad because I always knew he'd be the better parent to live with, but I talk more about personal stuff with my mam, yet I am probably closest overall with my auntie. I don't try to put my dad on the pedestal just because I chose to live with him, everyone else is equally important.

Ok but that's not even remotely close to what we're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Yeah, choosing between family members would be iniquitous.

Don't you have a favourite car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

I was only using it as an example, as the QP relationship I'm in is pretty "alternative".

I assume you mean individual car as opposed to make/model, but no. My two cars are both equal with each other but I have a different relationship with each of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chimaera

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade Cross
You can marry everyone (though that would be a legal nightmare) or noone. But I still say that its the person and not the nature of the relationship that determines who you give more importance to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

If two people in a romantic relationship are legally able to marry each other but are not actively making plans to do so, I am skeptical that they are actually the most important people in each other's lives. At least one of them is not ready for that level of commitment. Without marriage they have no legal obligations to each other. Probably a parent will turn out to have power of attorney in the case of a medical emergency, and might be considered their heir if there is no will. So if putting each other first is truly an emotional reality for both of them, wouldn't they want to take steps to make that so legally? But many people throw around words like "relationship" and "partner" long before that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

You can marry everyone (though that would be a legal nightmare) or noone. But I still say that its the person and not the nature of the relationship that determines who you give more importance to.

The nature of the relationship IS because of the person, though. You didn't marry them randomly... you married the person you want to live life with, rely on, be dependable for, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...