From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: People who give too much in a relationship (was Re: Attraction...)
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:12:14 GMT
	<1992Dec9.184132.16918@schbbs.mot.com> <75493@apple.apple.COM>
	<Bz4rvx.MnK@CAM.ORG>
Organization: The Cultural Elite

souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:

>The more experience I get, the more I feel "helping someone change" is
>one of those good deeds that does not go unpunished. Fairly well
>anyone I know who has "helped an SO" has also seen them walk away
>when said SO feels better. Relationships of this sort tend to be
>focused on the helper/needer roleset, which just ain't as much fun
>as spraying whipped cream on each other, so the "healed" SO seeks
>out greener & more fun pastures when the process is done.

W-e-l-l...  I think I'm basically in agreement with you, but I want
to quibble a bit.  I think that it's a _very_ bad idea to get involved
with someone if you can't accept them for who they are at that time.
That is, to get involved with someone while _planning_ to help them
change seems pretty dumb.  It's their job to decide when and how they
want to change, and assuming you can change them is asking for trouble.

I also agree that if someone is "helped" to change, the very changes 
can affect the relationship, often to the point of ending it.  

_However_, I don't really agree with the implication that helping or
being helped to change in a relationship necessarily implies that 
the relationship isn't as much fun as another relationship might be,
or that you end up "punished" by helping someone change.

A while ago, I went out with a guy for several years and we both changed
a lot, and helped each other make a lot of those changes.  I became
more confident, more independent, more assertive, more sophisticated,
and more adventurous.  He became more compassionate, more relaxed and
content, more socially skilled, and more financially sensible.  A lot
of the way we "helped" each other make those changes was simply by
example, but we were also more actively supportive a lot of the time.
However, we didn't pressure each other to make those changes; we were
involved because we accepted and liked/loved each other the way we
were at that time.  The changes either snuck up on us because of the
way we were living (for example, I'd go skiing because all my friends
were, despite my terror, and find out I loved it) or one of us would
feel this was something we wanted to work on and would discuss it with
the other to get his/her advice.  (Once, I remember him offering to help
me "get over" something that clearly was a fault but which I didn't think
was important enough for me to work on; I told him I'd work on it if and
when I wanted to, and he realized he'd crossed the line from helpfulness
into obtrusiveness.)  

We weren't in that relationship to get help making those changes, so
I don't think it was a not-very-fun helper/helpee type of thing as
you describe above.  In fact, we originally got involved just as a casual
fling, and we went out because it was fun at the time, not because we
were convinced of any long-term compatibility, and certainly not as
some sort of therapy replacement.  We just figured we'd see how it went, 
and it was fun for a lot longer than I'd expected.  I'm sure that if 
we'd never met each other, we each would have made a lot of those 
changes anyway, as a part of growing up.  However, I do feel grateful 
to him for the help he gave me, and I expect he feels the same way 
toward me.

Sure enough, eventually we weren't really compatible any more.  It
wasn't fun and we both felt discontent with the other's personality
and behavior.  So we broke up.  I can't really picture us being marriage
material even if we'd changed in different ways than we did, in 
retrospect, so I'm not sure whether it's fair to say that the changes
caused us to break up; then again, some of them definitely contributed, 
and we certainly wouldn't be a good match now (even if he weren't 
engaged!).  

But I wasn't in it for marriage or a lasting relationship -- in fact,
at the time, I was vehemently against getting married or settling
with someone with even implied permanence till I was several years 
older (and so was he).  We were in it for fun and because it was
personally rewarding at that time, and we were willing to wait and
see what the future brought without thinking much about it, partly
because we were still growing up and we didn't yet know much about
what we _wanted_ from the future.  It was lots of fun, I learned a
_lot_ about myself and about relationships, and I am very glad we
were involved.  (I'm also very glad we're not any more, and very
glad we broke it off quickly enough that we didn't build up any real
resentments, but were able to be close friends for a while, though
we've drifted out of touch now.) 

>Your best bet is finding someone on their way to getting their shit
>together and watching the progress without unduly getting involved.
>It's easier said than done if you care for that person, but everybody's
>peace of mind is preserved in the long run.

Yes, this is pretty much what I look for (depending on how you define 
"without getting unduly involved", I suppose).  However, I'm not a 
bit sorry to have helped someone grow up and be helped by them at a 
younger age, as things turned out.  Then again, I think the reason
I ended up not having any regrets was that that wasn't why I was in it!  
(Is this a corollary to the usual Soc.singles Law of Finding SO's,
"seek not, and ye shall find"?)

---Julie
-- 
%  I wonder why it is that when I plan a route too carefully it      %
%  goes to pieces, whereas if I blunder along in blissful ignorance  %
%  aimed in a fancied direction I get through with no trouble.       %
%                      --- John Steinbeck (_Travels with Charley_)   %
Newsgroups: soc.singles