Easy Love

[learner]

This is more of a Friday night musing post than relating to any particular life events of mine

It's always been my view that love should be primarily easy. That external events can make life and love temporarily difficult, but a successful relationship should internally be straightforward, maybe after a short period of settlement and growing into each other.

I'm interested in whether others agree with this, and how you can tell the difference between the initial hiccups that from experience every relationship has, and the longer term issues that mean you will never be compatible with each other?

This doesn't purely concern polyamory of course, although having started out with an 'easy' relationship, it's only really since we opened up and added more relationships into the mix that I've had experience of difficult ones...

 

[kdt26417]

Hi learner,

I don't know of any universal method for determining where the hiccups end and where the root incompatibility begins. On this forum I judge people's situations one at a time, and use my gut instinct to decide whether endurance or breaking up is the best way. Sometimes I am wrong. I know this, so I impart advice cautiously. I have observed that in most cases, I want the person to break up long before the person wants to break up. Most people just want to endure, and want advice on how to endure. They don't want to hear that they should break up.

Generally speaking, I would say that a successful relationship is one that gets easier over time. If it gets worse over time, it should probably be terminated. But this doesn't account for NRE, which makes a new relationship feel easier than perhaps it is or will be. And it doesn't account for the ups and downs that life and time bring. It is tempting to say the relationship should end during one of the down cycles. One must be careful not to give in to that temptation. A breakup now can lead to regrets later.

Of course one should break up if one's partner is abusive. But most people in a troubled relationship will refuse to see abuse, even after venting in such a way that the abuse is obvious to all who read the vent. The person who vented will be quick to backpedal and defend their abusive partner. Then they'll describe all their partner's positives, making the whole situation obscure and hard to judge clearly. Such is the nature of relationships, they don't lend themselves easily to any universal method of evaluation. Every relationship is unique ... even the abusive ones.

So I agree with your philosophy to a certain extent, but I still think every situation has to be examined in a unique way, and we won't know what that way is until we see the situation in question.

Regards,
Kevin T.

 

[FallenAngelina]

.... a successful relationship should internally be straightforward, maybe after a short period of settlement and growing into each other.

It's been my experience that a successful relationship is peaceful, in and of itself, right from the start. There's an "at home" feeling and a sense of needing to be nothing other than what you each are, no adjustments necessary.

 

[learner]

@FallenAngelina - yes, that's exactly it. One of the indicators I've been using recently as to whether relationships are promising or not is the idea of a 'safe space' - that you can feel comfortable and able to communicate whatever you need to communicate without fear of the other person's response.

@Kevin - yes, I've been in the defensive position myself, sorry to say... One thing poly has helped with is when friends come to me for relationship advice. Before I couldn't really understand why on earth they would choose to stay when things were obviously so bad, but now I have some insight as to how you can end up in that situation.

I suppose some of it is weighing up whether you should hold out for that easy relationship or settle for something less because you fear that relationship may never happen. I also wonder whether polyfolk are more likely to be involved in easy relationships because of some of the features we hopefully have in common - things like improved communication skills, flexibility, compromise etc.?

 

[kdt26417]

There's some controversy over whether polyamorists tend to be *better* at relationships than monogamists. I guess my take on it is polyamorists have to be better at it, because polyamory tends to be harder than monogamy. Polyamory tends to be more complex. Without improved communication skills, flexibility, compromise and more, it is harder to get along with more than one partner/metamour.

I don't know why people stay in difficult relationships. Is it because they're hopeful, and believe things will improve, or because they're not very hopeful, and believe things *can't* improve? Maybe it's a little of both.

 

[Belladonna]

There's some controversy over whether polyamorists tend to be *better* at relationships than monogamists. I guess my take on it is polyamorists have to be better at it, because polyamory tends to be harder than monogamy. Polyamory tends to be more complex. Without improved communication skills, flexibility, compromise and more, it is harder to get along with more than one partner/metamour.

I don't know why people stay in difficult relationships. Is it because they're hopeful, and believe things will improve, or because they're not very hopeful, and believe things *can't* improve? Maybe it's a little of both.

I think we might be better at it because we want it. When you want something in life you naturally try harder at it and we love being in love. Or why else be poly. Most mono people I know don't even like their partner. I love all of my relationships or I wouldn't be in them, at least long term.

 

[IndieSolo]

Loving is easy. It's the beliefs and thoughts people have about relationships that make them hard.

 

[Bluebird]

Yeah, I don't know. I've had several boyfriends who were an absolutely easy relationship, but it wasn't crazy NRE times either. There was nothing wrong with the relationship, but I just didn't feel like it was incredibly satisfying. We just sort of floated along. That said, I might have called them off because at the time, that wasn't what I was looking for. In the future, that might be ok.

And with my current breakup with WarMan, the loving part was easy, it was just that we were often at opposite ends of the spectrum trying to communicate. It was the most messed up relationship I have ever had. We were often frustrated with each other because the other was misconstruing everything said. I know I kept thinking that this would just be a hiccup because we loved each other so much, and that we were both intelligent enough to figure things out. Unfortunately his other mental health issues soon overwhelmed me and I broke it off, finally. Though in retrospect I think it was over a couple of months ago on his side of things.

 

[RiverGoddess]

I feel like the daily relationship should be easy; there should be a certain comfort and compatibility and ease with being with that person. There should not be a lot of quibbling about things and a lot of painful back and forth either. You shouldn't have to fight to get your basic needs met.

However, I also believe that choosing to love someone deeply through the thick and thin of life, over a long period of time, is very challenging.

Sometimes the easy thing to do is walk away. Sometimes, after hard life events like family death, job loss, pregnancy loss, personal crisis, etc... things can get rocky or rough. The reality of staying steadfast through a hard time with someone you love might not be "easy", but the desire to love them through it all, should be.

I find my partner so easy to love, and I find our love so easy. I do find navigating a deep, long term relationship (especially one designed for personal and spiritual growth) to be challenging.
It requires knowing when to be close and when to give space.
You need to know when to let them change (as we are all changing, all the time), or when to hold them up to their own stated standards/self-definition.
You need to be willing to accept possibly hearing hard truths about your own way of being, and look at your own motivations. Lovers (especially long term ones) are incredible mirrors.
You need to learn your own boundaries and limits, and attempt to explain WHY they are what they are.

This kind of relating is definitely NOT easy... but loving him, and choosing this kind of love over and over, every day - definitely is

 

[Ravenscroft]

oh, screw the roses!

Seems to me that seeking for "easy" as a primary goal in ANY endeavor is... well, not to sugarcoat it: fearful, lazy, cringing.

• "Why should I finish highschool? It's a lot easier to work at Walmart & live in Mom's basement."
• "Travel? Are you nuts? I have everything I need within three miles. No need to go any farther."
• "Sure, that job woulda paid me three times what I get at Arby's, but forty hours a week is too much like work."

Such thinking not only protects bad habits, but makes them seem somehow superior.

To backfill a little, in the foregoing you can see how people readily begin to tell themselves that anything not outright EASY therefore must be DIFFICULT -- not "less than 100% turnkey fully guaranteed easy-peasy" but instantly tough sledding

Here's a rough heuristic I created -- not science-y but most people get my drift. Think back on a relationship, past or present. Now, out of any 100 consecutive days (or 10 or 365 or whatever it's easiest for YOU to ponder), about what proportion did you spend

1. in absolute lovey-dovey bliss, feet hardly touching the ground
2. feeling calmly happy, going through the day with a soft smile, confident & grounded
3. just satisfied, being mellow, not at all "down" but not particularly "up"
4. a little stressed because of IRL stuff (job, house, etc.) but nothing a little time & effort won't fix
5. pressured, maybe some disagreement that we need to face up to
6. arguing or -- worse -- avoiding each other & not talking at all

And it could extend a few steps, but that's depressing.

I'd contend that the majority of your days will be spent in #3, followed by #4.

How do YOU define "easy" for yourself? Only #1? Maybe 1 & 2?

For me, "easy" runs at least to #5, because I long ago accepted that human beings are complex & quirky beings. As well, I understand that there is a very strong risk to reward ratio in dealing with people. A book called Risk/Reward mentions in its subtitle "daring choices" & "intelligent leaps."

The downside of "easy"? I have known victims of ongoing abusive relationships who will tell you it's TOO HARD to get help, move out, stop being beaten. Stayiong with an abuser is a known quantity, with no significant day-to-day change, but LOTS of hope that it'll get better (because there really ain't much room for worse) & no fear of facing any uncertainty -- it sucked yesterday, & it's probably gonna suck tomorrow, & that's EASY.

But let's consider the upside of risk. Okay, so we're (mostly) poly around here, but LDRs can be very problematic so most of us don't seek them out. And let's say you begin euphemistically dating two wonderful people. (FWIW, both are based heavily on people I knew in Santa Fe. )

• candidate #1 has a nice house in the near burbs, a steady job as a bank manager making $85K, likes video games & long evening walks around the lakes, doesn't go out often for social events, has two cats & a dog, & looks forward to having kids in the next few years
• candidate #2 is outgoing & gregarious, likes dancing the night away, is living on a trust fund set up by a grandparent, makes a small steady income working for an art dealer with galleries in New York & Europe, plans to return to Paris in a few months for a year or more, & has asked you to consider coming along

Most people will NOT see #2 as "the easy option," & many might be scared off by the uncertainty of it all, which for them would entirely overshadow the possibilities for adventure & exploration.

And let's not overlook that seeikng #1 as "easy" does tend to kind of set them up as somehow inferior to yourself: "oh, I know how to deal with them. <smirk>" Unless #1 is totally malleable & nothing but a walking locus of vagueness, & YOU are either the same or an utter saint, then 100% of your days CANNOT be vapidly "easy" & where will either of you have ready skills to fix it efficiently & satisfactorily?
________________

If "easy" is a major factor, then how big do the (inevitable) problems have to be before you walk away? Does that spell the end of the relationship? Yes, people DO behave that way, as was brought home to me VERY early in my sexual adulthood.

My friend Shannon had married Steve early in 12th grade, moved a block away from my family, & they seemed very happy. (To this day, I've never asked what she was thinking, as she wasn't pregnant. )

A year later, I was off to college, & found my first lover, Cindy, sophomore art major, a sweet quiet conservative Free Methodist girl. The sex was simply amazing, & we began unpacking all her emotional/moral baggage together, which only brough us closer together.

(This may be a major reason that I'm not attracted to "easy," but I did have that love of untangling dificulty before I signed up to go to school 200 miles from the only home I'd ever known.)

That summer, I came home, & I was over chatting with Steve, trying to tell him how rewarding I'd found it to find myself in an argument with Cindy, then have us both step up, address the problem properly, & fix it together. I said something like "if we do it right, it seems like arguing actually makes us stronger, & more confident that we'd be able to handle bigger problems."

"Oh, bullshit," Steve said with a laugh, pulling Shannon into his lap as she walked by. "We've been together two, three years, & we've never had an argument!!"

You can see it coming, right?

A few months later, unable to continue dodging away from acknowledging the little difficulties, Shannon & Steve had their first argument, & it was apparently a doozy, & they had no skills for dealing with it, & they were divorced in less than a year.

Cindy & I continued on a further four tempestuous & largely happy years, broke up & got back together, transitioned to an open relationship, lived together awhile, separated & became FWBs. She kept turning back to monogamy, so the sex was sporadic, but she sought out my input on job changes, new apartments, & possible boyfriends.

Was any of it "easy"?

Was it totally worth it?

 

[learner]

Here's a rough heuristic I created -- not science-y but most people get my drift. Think back on a relationship, past or present. Now, out of any 100 consecutive days (or 10 or 365 or whatever it's easiest for YOU to ponder), about what proportion did you spend

1. in absolute lovey-dovey bliss, feet hardly touching the ground
2. feeling calmly happy, going through the day with a soft smile, confident & grounded
3. just satisfied, being mellow, not at all "down" but not particularly "up"
4. a little stressed because of IRL stuff (job, house, etc.) but nothing a little time & effort won't fix
5. pressured, maybe some disagreement that we need to face up to
6. arguing or -- worse -- avoiding each other & not talking at all

And it could extend a few steps, but that's depressing.

I'd contend that the majority of your days will be spent in #3, followed by #4.

How do YOU define "easy" for yourself? Only #1? Maybe 1 & 2?

Point taken - my 'easy' covers #1 to #6 quite happily... but I'd contend that if most of your time is spent in #5 or #6, the relationship really isn't working, and I've seen a number of relationships that carry on in that state for ages... In fact I have used the whole proportion of time spent in the different steps when people come to me for advice as a relatively objective measure of whether things are looking good or not.

I think the problem is that in difficult relationships, we distort the whole 'reward' thing so that we accept less and less as time goes by

 

[Ravenscroft]

A friend has reminded me that what I call a risk / reward ratio is called by some a cost-benefit approach.

Duly noted & appreciated.
________________

While I'm here, let's resurrect the neophile-vs.-neophobe continuum.

And let's borrow from Everett Rogers, who examined people faced with innovations (technological & sociological) & divided them by how soon after initial exposure they accepted the change:

• innovators
• early adopters
• early majority
• late majority
• laggards

The second category is where many innovations fail -- remember Apple's Newton? In marketing, they're also known as lighthouse customers, & they tend to be very practical people but willing to take a chance on improving their situation. IME, some of it sounds VERY familiar in a poly context --

Early adoption does come with pitfalls: early versions of products may be buggy and/or prone to malfunction.

[These people have] early access to an advantageous new product or technology, but he or she also serves as a kind of guinea pig ... being exposed to the problems, risks, and annoyances common to early-stage product testing and deployment....

...new technology is very often expensive, so the early adopter still often pays quite a lot.

I'm generally an early adopter, though for personal beliefs (nonmonogamy, Wicca, leather, bisexuality) I've been motivated to be an innovator, & adapted to taking risks of "being out" back in the mid-1980s, which right now many "true believers" would still not risk.

Nowadays, people who embrace polyamory are late majority. (By definition, few laggards would bother being poly unless it was so commonplace that they sorta wandered into it & had no clear reason to leave.) The term "polyamory" has been around since 1992, the explicit concept (moderately stable nonmonogamous relating with clear & healthy communication channels) more than a decade before that, & the bases predating by further decades & maybe a century.

That is to say, polyamory stopped being innovative a long time ago. The risks aren't gone, not by a long shot, but there's MUCH less basis for fear than three decades back.

Roughly, those who want the stability & predictability of "easy" are likely in one of the "majority" categories. They aren't particularly interested in taking any chances unless the payoff is relatively huge. And, being as they're probably neophilic, they probably don't have experience at guesstimating how big (or tiny) the potential rewards are compared to the risks -- therefore more likely to cannonball in, expect too much, & overcommit to a questionable situation.

I see "easy" as a reward for doing stuff right, a temporary respite from work... not as a replacement for effort.

 

[IndieSolo]

It's always been my view that love should be primarily easy. That external events can make life and love temporarily difficult, but a successful relationship should internally be straightforward, maybe after a short period of settlement and growing into each other.

I'm interested in whether others agree with this, and how you can tell the difference between the initial hiccups that from experience every relationship has, and the longer term issues that mean you will never be compatible with each other?

Every relationship has its challenges, but for me, I love easily. And by loving someone, I mean feeling a deep well of appreciation for who they are, just as they are, and an attraction to them just because they exist. There is no wanting to fix them or change them to fit into some ideal. If someone I love is also "easy to love," it means, to me, that they let in the love I direct their way without resisting it.

However, loving someone and being able to be in a relationship are two different things! I think most of us have had the experience of loving someone we know isn't good for us to be in a relationship with, and so we don't go there or end it. While, for me, I believe love relationships (and all relationships, in fact) are meant to help us learn about ourselves, I don't think there needs to be battles to do that. I don't think relationships are very healthy if they are more hard work than anything else.

I'm ready to make whatever efforts I can to be a partner. I strive to be present, supportive, honest, and nurturing - and that has always been my approach to all my relationships, whether monogamous or polyamorous -- but I think that when the scales tip too often into the area of hard work, difficult issues to be resolved, and constantly defending and strategizing to fix things, rather than in the area of lightheartedness, joy, and a sense of ease and fulfllment, then I say there is basic incompatibility there and it's time to say goodbye.

It's been my experience that a successful relationship is peaceful, in and of itself, right from the start. There's an "at home" feeling and a sense of needing to be nothing other than what you each are, no adjustments necessary.

Yes! This is true of so many, many things in life. How often do we turn down the chance to take a bite of delicious fruit, while at the same time we are saying we want beauty and joy in our lives?

I suppose some of it is weighing up whether you should hold out for that easy relationship or settle for something less because you fear that relationship may never happen.

It is odd how polyamorists, who embrace loving more than one person, can still subscribe to the idea that love is scarce! And so often we see people here who settle and put up with terrible treatment, just to be poly or some nonsense like that - instead of using better judgment, and seeing people for who and what they are instead of what we hope they will be.

I also wonder whether polyfolk are more likely to be involved in easy relationships because of some of the features we hopefully have in common - things like improved communication skills, flexibility, compromise etc.?

Those "features" are necessary in monogamy, too. Just in different ways.

Roughly, those who want the stability & predictability of "easy" . . . aren't particularly interested in taking any chances unless the payoff is relatively huge. And, being as they're probably neophilic, they probably don't have experience at guesstimating how big (or tiny) the potential rewards are compared to the risks -- therefore more likely to cannonball in, expect too much, & overcommit to a questionable situation.

I don't automatically equate an easy relationship with predictable nor without risk, though it may be more stable. Even though I love easily, I am still taking a big chance in opening my heart to love, whether that person is easy or hard to love. Loving someone means being vulnerable and open to risk. Though I may easily let myself risk my heart, loving someone doesn't mean I have to stick around in a difficult relationship where I might feel unsafe, not be heard, feel disrespected, not valued, or where I have to constantly fight for it to feel good and lighthearted and nurturing. I deserve a three-course meal, not crumbs.

As I said above, I see loving someone and being in a relationship with them as two different things. The more hard work and angst there is in a relationship, the less compatible we are and the less joy I can derive from that relationship. I don't need difficulty in my life to be happy. I embrace sweetness and ease, but that doesn't mean there is no risk-taking or investment!

 

[Spork]

I try to be patient and see if things will improve if there are certain challenges, but if a pattern of behavior persists through multiple sets of excuses or reasons and it's just always this same issue with someone... I start eventually to think about whether something is a problem, or a Problem.

And some issues are more resolvable or workable or dealable than others.

The one thing I have found recently that can just screw everything up (from my perspective and in my opinion) is when communication is broken. I can understand or forgive or work out nearly anything...if we're communicating well about it. But if we've shut each other out, if I'm not feeling heard, or if my partner won't talk to me, and leaves me to guess at what they are thinking, feeling, or doing... That is no bueno.

 

[learner]

Wow - plenty to think about! Just a few thoughts

I try to be patient and see if things will improve if there are certain challenges, but if a pattern of behavior persists through multiple sets of excuses or reasons and it's just always this same issue with someone... I start eventually to think about whether something is a problem, or a Problem.

I agree with this, but I don't know how to tell when to draw the line? And yes, I know this is part of doing Life, just wish sometimes there was a guidebook to get us through

Every relationship has its challenges, but for me, I love easily. And by loving someone, I mean feeling a deep well of appreciation for who they are, just as they are, and an attraction to them just because they exist. There is no wanting to fix them or change them to fit into some ideal. If someone I love is also "easy to love," it means, to me, that they let in the love I direct their way without resisting it.

I've been surprised by how resistant some people are to being loved, and how much they seem to want to wallow in misery and pain. I've had a few relationships that have just been endless frustration because the other person seemed to be on course for self-destruction - that I find an impossible situation to be in - hard to stay, hard to walk away

That is to say, polyamory stopped being innovative a long time ago. The risks aren't gone, not by a long shot, but there's MUCH less basis for fear than three decades back.

Hmm, I wonder if this might be affected by the community around you though - for some people adopting poly at this stage, they still may be early adopters amongst their peers...

I see "easy" as a reward for doing stuff right, a temporary respite from work... not as a replacement for effort.

I don't think 'easy love' necessarily means there's no effort being put in, just that the person you're with (or the lack of compatibility you have) isn't adding to the difficulty of the relationship - I guess it's a relative thing

 

[BlueShoes]

My feeling on this is that loving people is easy, but living with them can be hard.

You can go in with the best and most generous intentions and discover that you are, nonetheless, deeply incompatible. You can love each other greatly and disagree about something major like whether to have children. Or where to live, how involved to be with friends and family, and about a million other things. Aligning disparate individuals is really, and properly, difficult. But we don't always fall for people who share our desires and values.