Girlfriend wants an open relationship

shanzeek wrote:I agree with everything you wrote, xdude. I'd probably pretend for a while I wasn't hurt and tried to be cool about it, but pretty sure I'd be deeply unhappy, and most people would. I can also never imagine suggesting this first, if I want other people, I'd simply break up or stay single. I'd read such suggestion as - I really don't feel the same way about you anymore but I also don't want to lose everything you do for me so, can we do both somehow? It's covertly disrespectful and I can see how one's desire to be 'politically correct' and open-minded could easily get exploited here.

not directly related, more of a message to myself, but - whatever is considered a strength in the world of nons easily becomes a weakness in a toxic relationship and is used against you. empathy, open-mindedness, willingness to own up to things, to give people a benefit of the doubt. all these things without strong boundaries really do become a weakness.

Amen, it is a I want my cake and eat it too proposition, which is fine because it's understandable people may try to achieve the maximum/best outcome in every situation, but your last paragraph is key for sure.

xdude wrote:

shanzeek wrote:I agree with everything you wrote, xdude. I'd probably pretend for a while I wasn't hurt and tried to be cool about it, but pretty sure I'd be deeply unhappy, and most people would. I can also never imagine suggesting this first, if I want other people, I'd simply break up or stay single. I'd read such suggestion as - I really don't feel the same way about you anymore but I also don't want to lose everything you do for me so, can we do both somehow? It's covertly disrespectful and I can see how one's desire to be 'politically correct' and open-minded could easily get exploited here.

not directly related, more of a message to myself, but - whatever is considered a strength in the world of nons easily becomes a weakness in a toxic relationship and is used against you. empathy, open-mindedness, willingness to own up to things, to give people a benefit of the doubt. all these things without strong boundaries really do become a weakness.

Amen, it is a I want my cake and eat it too proposition, which is fine because it's understandable people may try to achieve the maximum/best outcome in every situation, but your last paragraph is key for sure.

For maximum outcome, she then gets pregnant by the guy and gets paid for 20 years, while still banging other men, that's why condoms are preferable

mark1958 wrote:

shanzeek wrote:not directly related, more of a message to myself, but - whatever is considered a strength in the world of nons easily becomes a weakness in a toxic relationship and is used against you. empathy, open-mindedness, willingness to own up to things, to give people a benefit of the doubt. all these things without strong boundaries really do become a weakness.

This may be the most important point made here.

How exactly? A lack of internal rigidity isn’t a strength any more than too much rigidity is, regardless of the nature of the relationship.

There are far better words to describe these behaviours: naivety, gullibility, credulity.
Those last two are associated with failures of social intelligence which obviously then runs contrary to empathy.

Empathy frankly I don’t get at all as it’s a purely internal process, it can no more be turned against you than intelligence can. i guess you could argue sympathy with something like BPD or DPD if it was mixed with the three above. But it’s perfectly possible to act compassionately towards someone and not become invested.

A toxic relationship isn’t some form of psychic akido which uses your strengths against you, it’s a prolonged period of light-moderate stress under which psychological weaknesses become apparent. Just as someone with ASD can function within their routine but will breakdown should radical change or another form of stress be applied. Most people can behave normally under entirely benign conditions but it is under pressure that the normally covert behaviours/compensations/weaknesses (pathological or otherwise) are most easily seen.

As far as the OP goes this is simply a question of agency.

The impression I get is that he is not happy with the idea of an open-relationship and that it will not meet his emotional needs. The only pertinent questions then are why is he unable to communicate this? Or why does he feel unable to assert his own needs?

Personally I think my response would be something along the lines of “yes, you can have an open relationship, you’ll just have to have it with someone else.”

666th post.

There are far better words to describe these behaviours: naivety, gullibility, credulity.

I'd say it's a matter of perspective. Whether it's open-mindedness/giving botd or gullibility is defined by the other person's reaction to it. Taken out of context, by itself, it really can be both, depending on the lenses of one who is watching. Same traits have acted for and against me in relation to different people, so I really don't think it's accurate to label them purely one or the other. There're people who do deserve a benefit of the doubt, and others who don't. How do you differentiate unless you give them both the benefit of it even if it means getting burned the first time and making a wise choice the second? What is the alternative way for establishing this other than to risk? Do you ever doubt your own decisions, Quoth, can it really be that you're always certain you've made the right choice? It's statistically impossible. People questioning everything including themselves and their actions is not naivety, gullibility or credulity, it's common sense.

shanzeek wrote:666th post.

There are far better words to describe these behaviours: naivety, gullibility, credulity.

I'd say it's a matter of perspective. Whether it's open-mindedness/giving botd or gullibility is defined by the other person's reaction to it. Taken out of context, by itself, it really can be both, depending on the lenses of one who is watching. Same traits have acted for and against me in relation to different people, so I really don't think it's accurate to label them purely one or the other. There're people who do deserve a benefit of the doubt, and others who don't. How do you differentiate unless you give them both the benefit of it even if it means getting burned the first time and making a wise choice the second? What is the alternative way for establishing this other than to risk? Do you ever doubt your own decisions, Quoth, can it really be that you're always certain you've made the right choice? It's statistically impossible. People questioning everything including themselves and their actions is not naivety, gullibility or credulity, it's common sense.

No it isn’t. Credulity is the tendency to accept something as true with insufficient basis.

If someone says something which sounds unlikely or untrue I say ‘sorry, but that doesn’t sound very likely’ at which point they either back it up and I accept that they were right or they don’t and I don’t believe them or I withhold judgement. What I don’t do is allow them to distort my own perception, idealise or buy into their fibs and proceed to go to bed with them.

It isn’t a binary position of accepting or denying what someone says, as I pointed out earlier with the Aristotle quote it’s about entertaining the idea without accepting it.

Gullibility is the inability to perceive that one is being tricked or manipulated. If empathy is a major factor here why isn’t everyone’s intuition busy screaming that something is wrong. If we’re talking major psychiatric issues, personally i’ve always found that these people ‘feel’ hollow like the emotional tempest had little to no depth which is further backed by the fact that ‘real’ or ‘healthy’ emotions do not turn on a dime or chop and change so rapidly.

Do I question the decisions I make? Of course I do, which is why I make them carefully, usually I try to get more information if feel I don’t have enough. If I make a bad call I find out why I cocked up, and take it on board before moving on because that’s how we learn and there is literally Nothing I or anyone else can do. If it’s a big cock up I may kick myself for it for a while. Equally I look back at mistakes i’ve made in past relationships and look at what I did wrong there. Specifically what I did wrong, other people might do dick things but my actions are ultimately my own doing. Otherwise it just becomes about externalising guilt or splitting on the other person.

Each time these things come up I am reminded of the common abuser refrain “you shouldn’t have made me angry” or “you know what happens if you do that” as if acting like cockwomble was anyone’s fault but their own. EE’s stalker didn’t ‘pull her in’ with some mystic force, that was her own issues doing that and people don’t stay in abusive relationship (particularly if in doing so they are also exposing their children) if their own psychology isn’t a primary factor, in fact it’s literally 50% of the problem.

My argument here isn’t about being certain, like with the OP it’s about personal agency and the responsibility that comes with it.

I do not interpret Shanzeek's point as absolving a person from the ways in which they may contribute to a toxic situation. If someone is toxic, then yes, one should leave immediately.

I do interpret and very much agree with the point that these non-disordered traits that she mentions , which to nons are high quality and positive traits, can attract disordered individuals. These individuals then seek to exploit and often will wind up abusing the person because of those very same traits. It is part and parcel of the pathology of the disorder. Hence, without strong boundaries, they can become a weakness. It happens so frequently that to debate that seems illogical.

People do not hold up signs. The switching from "I love you" to I am now hurting you catches many off guard and comes as a complete shock. A disordered individual does not telegraph that they are now going to begin harming you. Many nons have already built a foundation in the relationship when this begins, just can not jump in the car and go, oh well, that is that. There are feelings and emotions involved. Many disordered individuals cleverly disguise who they are.

Now, if someone recognizes this, by all means, staying is absolutely the wrong course. And yes, someone who continues trying to make it work is ill advised. But there are also very complicated reasons for why someone may stay, depends on the infrastructure in place, property and contracts, even when they realize exactly who they are with.

Of course, if one believes that never happens, and all nons are wrong about that premise and their testimony to their experiences are also wrong, then any discussion about it will just be circular. However, this point will also contradict psychological professionals who know these experiences are real.

This is the reason we have these forums, for nons point of view, so that their experiences are recognized, and validated.

mark1958 wrote:I do not interpret Shanzeek's point as absolving a person from the ways in which they may contribute to a toxic situation. If someone is toxic, then yes, one should leave immediately.

Well not to be funny Mark, but I’m not sure how much I believe this. On the one hand you’re saying that you don’t deny both peoples role in the relationship dynamic yet in the next sentence your labelling only one of the parties as toxic.

I do interpret and very much agree with the point that these non-disordered traits that she mentions , which to nons are high quality and positive traits, can attract disordered individuals. These individuals then seek to exploit and often will wind up abusing the person because of those very same traits. It is part and parcel of the pathology of the disorder. Hence, without strong boundaries, they can become a weakness. It happens so frequently that to debate that seems illogical.

People do not hold up signs. The switching from "I love you" to I am now hurting you catches many off guard and comes as a complete shock. A disordered individual does not telegraph that they are now going to begin harming you. Many nons have already built a foundation in the relationship when this begins, just can not jump in the car and go, oh well, that is that. There are feelings and emotions involved. Many disordered individuals cleverly disguise who they are.

This argument too I find unsatisfying.

Firstly your basically saying that these ‘disordered’ people are attracted to these ‘nons’ because they are such lovely people.

Is there much evidence to suggest the niceness of these ‘nons’ ?

Because if there isn’t that begs the questions; isn’t this just the presentation of an unrealistic sense of self? And if you can’t spot these disordered people easily, how exactly are they supposed to spot you? the traits mentioned by shanzeek are innate after all.

Personally based on my own experience with NPD and BPD it’s quite a lot easier to spot their weird behaviour’s whilst trying to measure or predict the degree of open mindedness or empathy are things both I and academic psychology find it difficult to measure.

Equally this is still a one sided approach as even if we accept this reasoning for why a ‘disordered’ person is attracted to these people, it fails to address why a ‘non’ is attracted to the ‘disordered person.’

Thank you for telling me that there are feelings involved, I am certain I would have forgotten otherwise. The catch here is that ones emotional response is not a true depiction of a situation, hence reason should also be present.

Saying debate is illogical is just a form of proof by assertion. It also entirely misses the point of what causes those lack of strong boundaries? Which realistically is the entire crux of the disagreement.

Now, if someone recognizes this, by all means, staying is absolutely the wrong course. And yes, someone who continues trying to make it work is ill advised. But there are also very complicated reasons for why someone may stay, depends on the infrastructure in place, property and contracts, even when they realize exactly who they are with.

Sure if there are issues of infrastructure, housing, employment etc.

Not entirely sure where we’re going with this as the argument related to whether or not it is strengths that are turned against you during a toxic relationship.

Of course, if one believes that never happens, and all nons are wrong about that premise and their testimony to their experiences are also wrong, then any discussion about it will just be circular.

It’s your splitting of these problems into a ‘non’ side and a ‘disordered’ side which disturbs me. I mean I’m diagnosed with a trauma disorder and some of the things in my own history vastly supersedes the kind of abuse suffered in a toxic relationship yet I seem to view my own history and my own abusers with considerably more nuance than this. It’s kinda creepy.

However, this point will also contradict psychological professionals who know these experiences are real.

What that a person’s strengths are turned into weaknesses in a toxic relationship? I’m surprised about that but I’d love to see some evidence for it.

This is the reason we have these forums, for nons point of view, so that their experiences are recognized, and validated.

’Nons’ being non disordered by self definition in this context. I also suspect that you are manipulating the term validate here. Validation doesn’t equate to playing into delusion.

I’m not sure why your telling me this either. I’m not invalidating the OPs situation regardless of the definition used.

I'm in no business of stripping of blame those who willingly stay in abusive relationships. Been there, done that, learned my lesson. That's not what I was talking about. Just trying to understand where the line of personal responsibility here is and what doesn't fall under it.

Gullibility is the inability to perceive that one is being tricked or manipulated.

So you think only those who are gullible can be manipulated or tricked? Those who have no previous experience with manipulation will fall for it, why is there a name and a description of this 'lack of experience with manipulation' as if there's something wrong with it and not with the manipulator?

Quoth wrote:
Firstly your basically saying that these ‘disordered’ people are attracted to these ‘nons’ because they are such lovely people.
Is there much evidence to suggest the niceness of these ‘nons’ ?

I don't know about niceness, but by non I mean a healthy stable individual, and a person of that description is less likely to be destructive to their surrounding than someone disordered. Not all nons are lovely or good people, nobody here said that.
ps. non is such a broad category that I was genuinely lost couple of times when you were explaining how you don't think highly of 'em, how is not being disordered a category you can make a, any assumption on? what is there to conclude from someone's non-disorder?

A sort of 90 degree take -

Again I go back to the dove vs hawk game theory, because it's a huge over-simplification, but sometimes simplifications can help us see past the noise.

When faced with a 'if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours' proposal...

Doves are inclined to scratch first, fully expecting they are dealing with another dove and will get their turn too. Going first is supposed to communicate they are trustworthy, which it does, but...

Hawks are inclined to enjoy the benefit of being scratched, and then leave, off to find a new dove who hasn't yet learned how hawks operate (or how this particular hawk operates), because there is almost always a new dove who hasn't yet learned the hawk's strategy.

--

As to how it ties in with this thread, she is making a hawk move, and the OP is making a dove move.

From a dove's point of view, being conscientious of what a partner wants and trying to be fair makes good sense to doves (though yes even doves expect some benefit in return) Sadly, I suspect he will find himself worse off as hawks don't think that way.

p.s. And just my personal twist to the theory... some hawk's live in denial, and may believe they are doves. These hawks have no tells, and so can be exceptionally successful fooling doves, because they really have convinced themselves too that they are doves. Very hard to see this except through repeated experiences.