HOW TO DESCRIBE A RELATIONSHIP SO THAT THE READER BELIEVE IN ITS REALITY

Relationships between a man and a woman! It seems like a topic as old as time. But at the same time endlessly new! At different times and eras, the facets of these relations were different and largely depended on the social system and the rules adopted in it. What are they like today?

What are the pitfalls, types and stages of these relationships. What conditions are necessary to maintain them harmonious for a long time? Is this necessary? Come in and you will probably find the answers to your questions!

Relationships at work

What is the relationship between a man and a woman at work? They are also different. Moreover, there is a category of people who call them business, and there are those who believe that such relationships do not exist at all.

Let us note just a few features:

• Constant close contacts. There are pros and cons here: some people like to work side by side with their partner, while others quickly get tired of it;
• If a loved one is nearby at work, this can motivate lovers to certain feats professionally. If a quarrel occurs, then, on the contrary, work efficiency can decrease significantly. There are also those for whom the presence of their beloved partner becomes a hindrance;

• Misunderstanding on the part of colleagues. Not everyone is able to understand what close relationships at work are, and also to accept them: hence anger, aggression, envy, and sometimes hidden bullying;
• Managers are also not all able to accept love relationships at work, especially if they interfere with the lovers’ ability to perform their functions. Sometimes it comes to dismissal.

Expert opinion

Ksenia Terentyeva

Psychologist-consultant

Ask a Question

Office romances have their own nuances, both positive and negative. Often they do not always benefit lovers. Therefore, everyone decides for themselves what to do at work: work or have affairs. And of course, here it is worth carefully weighing the possible consequences of such a relationship.

Author's experience

Vladimir Ekimov

Author of the article

Ask a Question

I have seen the development and decline of such relationships at work three times. I myself had such an experience once. It ended in nothing, I had to leave that job. Of course, the teams are different, and each will perceive two people in love differently. Even if a couple does not strive to demonstrate their relationship explicitly, it will still become known about it. In a team you can rarely hide anything, especially in a female team. It’s good if such a relationship can end in marriage. Or husband and wife work together. But basically, they rarely end successfully, unlike the happy ending of such relationships in the film “Office Romance.”

Types of relationships between a man and a woman

The relationship between a man and a woman is a fascinating topic that interests many. In society, people cannot help but maintain connections with the opposite sex. But they do not always understand what kind of relationships can exist between representatives of opposite sexes, as well as what is at the basis of their formation.

Sympathy and love

The development of emotional relationships between partners begins with sympathy. For its appearance, a person must evaluate the following criteria in a partner:

READ

Effective ways to support a man in a difficult situation from a distance with words and actions

• appearance;
• physical attractiveness;
• status;
• socio-demographic indicators.

These characteristics of a person are always visible, so it does not take much time to assess them.

But sympathy is a short-term and quickly passing emotional connection. If a relationship has arisen between people, as it develops it can develop into falling in love. It is often confused with love. The main mechanism for the emergence of this connection is the emotional reaction to advances from a woman or man.

In order for infatuation to take root and develop into love, it needs to develop, becoming acquainted with the negative sides of the beloved person. Only by accepting its “dark side” can we talk about the birth of love.

But you don’t always need to accept your partner’s negativity. There are types of men in relationships with women that should be avoided:

• Tyrants. Such people hide their true nature well. At the stage of falling in love, they can be affectionate, caring and tender. The tyrant is revealed mainly in marriage. He begins to control his partner and may beat or insult him. It's all due to lack of self-confidence. The tyrant is insanely afraid of losing his beloved or convicting her of treason. It is almost impossible to change such a psychotype. If the first signs appear, then you should not expect a miracle, because the tyrant will not change.
• Mama's boy. It is unlikely that this type can be re-educated. All his life, his mother made decisions for him, who does not want to admit that the child has grown up. Such men are dependent and effeminate. They prefer to get involved with strong-willed women who, like a mother, will solve problems for them.
• Misogynists. These are men who were unable to overcome the heart wounds left over from past relationships. In the new union, they prefer to take revenge for their suffering on the woman who loves them. Misogynists do not experience love, but on the contrary, they despise it. This type can be corrected, but the man must want to let go of old grievances himself.
• Alphonse. Such men believe that they were born for a beautiful life in which there is no need to strain. It's easy to fall in love with a gigolo. He is handsome, well-groomed, courteous, but he will be with a woman as long as she makes his life carefree. As soon as she needs a man's help, he will leave his “hard” life.

If along the path of life you have developed a liking for one of these types of men, think in advance about the consequences of such a union.

READ

How to stop being jealous and cheating yourself: advice from a psychologist for women and men

Dependents

Relationships between a man and a woman can be dependent. They differ from ordinary ones in that it is very difficult for a person to get out of them.

A man can sensibly understand that a painful relationship needs to be stopped, but he is not able to take action. Dependent relationships appear as a result of a strong emotional connection:

• partners can only communicate with each other, refusing friends;
• Unhealthy jealousy can give rise to the seed of a dependent union.

When a couple agrees to follow general rules (don’t communicate with friends, don’t go outside without your husband, don’t watch TV without your wife), but one of the spouses violates them, the relationship begins to bring nothing but suffering.

Basically, codependent relationships can be observed in couples where one of the spouses is a gambling addict, drug addict or alcoholic. In such a union, one person destroys himself with a bad habit, and the other cannot find the strength to leave him and leave.

The connection between the spouses cannot stop because they think that there is true love between them. But they are wrong.

Psychologists say that spouses can see their parent in the past in each other. It is this emotional connection, the once-unclosed gestalt, that prevents these bonds from being broken. For example, if a girl’s father beat her mother, then in adulthood she may endure beatings from her husband, trying to act out the situation with her parent on him. More often, such women think: “If I couldn’t stop my father, then I can stop you, husband, I can.”

For the sake of childhood experiences and unfulfilled hopes, people often endure physical and emotional pain.

Matriarchal or patriarchal

Matriarchy and patriarchy are types of family relationships that reflect the power structure in the union, the functions of women and men, as well as the specifics of leadership within the family. Based on these criteria, we can distinguish 5 types of families:

Each couple chooses their own type of relationship. Sometimes leadership positions in a family can change after some time. But in most cases, the emergence of a type of relationship occurs at the stage of falling in love and continues until it exhausts itself.

READ

Unrequited love: searching for solutions and compromises

By calculation

An arranged relationship is the creation of a couple under the strict guidance of reason, not feelings. But in such relationships, love is not excluded. The calculation may vary:

• increase prosperity;
• strengthen status;
• register in an apartment;
• have a permanent sexual partner;
• for the sake of the child.

It is impossible to say unambiguously what such a relationship can lead to, since each situation that prompted this step is individual.

According to statistics, marriages of convenience are much stronger than marriages of love. But there are few happy unions among them. Based on rational considerations, arranged marriages can be concluded on mutually beneficial terms: “I wash and clean, you work, and in the evening we spend time together.” Such relationships can last for years, but as long as the union is beneficial for both the man and the woman.

According to representatives of psychology, the calculation is not so bad. You need to think about the future. When entering into a relationship of convenience, it is most correct not to guess “What can I take from a man,” but to find out “What can I give to a man.” You need to think about your interests, but do not forget that the union will be strong only when the wife thinks about her husband and vice versa.

Polygamous

Translated from Greek, polygamy refers to a form of marital relationship in which a wife or husband has several partners for whom they feel love. In this regard, polygamous relationships are divided into two types:

• polygyny - polygamy;
• polyandry - polyandry;
• bigamy - polygyny in which one wife does not know about the existence of the other.

In the Middle Ages, polygamy was justified. The reasons for this were the following:

• due to military losses, the male population was rapidly declining;
• after epidemics, population restoration was required;
• Religious dogmas called for polyandry and polygamy.

Now society has no need to maintain these circumstances. When entering into a love union, a person should not be guided by sexual instincts.

According to psychologists, polygamous unions are preferred by insecure people who want to assert themselves at the expense of two partners.

Polyamorous

Polyamorous relationships are relatives of polygamy. They also allow multiple connections, but with some differences:

• in polyamorous unions there is no division between polyandry and polygamy;
• love relationships can develop between a free man and a married woman or an alliance between several polygamous families.

Supporters of such unions believe that the main thing in love between the sexes is the absence of jealousy, respect and loyalty.

There are no leaders in such families. The interests of partners are always taken into account. Important decisions are made only after joint discussion.

There are situations when jealousy breaks into a polyamorous relationship. But the family solves this problem through joint efforts.

Marital

Marriage or conjugal union means a long-term relationship based on responsibility for one’s other half. In the modern understanding, a family is created for:

• giving birth and raising children;
• joint household management.

The union is usually supported legally or religiously. Ideally, the core of a family union is love, which arose from emotional and spiritual intimacy.

Relationships must be supported by the physical need of the spouse for the spouse and vice versa.

Relationship stages

There are also several classifications regarding the stages. But here is the most common one:

1. The stage of falling in love involves a strong passion for the opposite sex. At this time, a person is blinded by the positive qualities of another due to strong attachment. Here only advantages are visible, and there are no disadvantages. This stage can last up to two years.
2. After this, satiety , when the pink veil falls from the eyes, and people begin to show their natural character traits.
3. The most difficult period comes in the era of disgust . A lot of things start to irritate your partner; he often does the wrong thing. From the point of view of relationship psychologists, it is during this difficult period that many couples break up. But if you endure a little somewhere or compromise, show wisdom and flexibility, then you can move to the next stage, avoiding big quarrels and difficult separations.

4. After this stage comes patience : disagreements and quarrels become less and less frequent, and partners are ready to tolerate some moments in their relationship.

5. During a period of respect , partners do pleasant things to each other: deeds, actions, words. But this is not happening at all in order to please him again. This happens because close people do this for each other’s benefit, they want to help their half, they protect him from something.

6. Not everyone reaches this stage of friendship and partnership It is during this period that partners listen and hear each other, and they even enjoy being silent together, giving each other advice, getting carried away with something, striving for something new that is interesting for both.

7. As a result of all the stages described above, as a consequence, a state of love for another is born. This is not a spontaneous phenomenon, not the kind of falling in love that usually happens at the beginning of a relationship. This is painstaking and long work, joint overcoming of obstacles, joint movement and development. But still, there must be an initial interest in the other, a feeling of “your” person. Otherwise, the couple most likely will not reach this stage.

Causes of problematic relationships

Ideally, the union of two people should motivate both to new achievements. But it also happens that partners do not hear each other, and sometimes they are even pulled to the bottom. So why do destructive relationships happen?

The main reason for the appearance of an incorrect scenario in a couple may be childhood trauma. Former witnesses of scandals and violence between their parents begin to repeat the same actions in their own family. For them, this is the norm, since morality and a model of relationships are laid down in childhood. In the future, such people are looking for a partner who would make them suffer, as they are accustomed to.

The famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud described the Oedipus and Electra complexes in his works. This phenomenon lies in the fact that the parent is the prototype of the child’s future love partner, both externally and internally.

For example, a woman who saw her father tyrannize her mother as a child will look for a “bad guy” at the subconscious level, rejecting worthy candidates. Or a guy whose mother was oppressive will find himself a similar wife and will suffer.

If a person was taught from an early age that material wealth is the basis of a normal marriage, then he will look for a rich partner. But sooner or later, the lack of sincere feelings will begin to torment the soul. Money can't buy happiness and genuine emotional connection.

Indifference in relationships is another scourge of our time. People stay in a couple, despite the emotional cold, because they are afraid of losing the bird in the hand. This is due to low self-esteem, which always has its roots in childhood. Perhaps the poor child was taught that he was not worthy of love due to his unattractive appearance or poor grades at school.

Polygamous partners are also often associated with self-doubt. Theories about the instinctive nature of multiple connections are just excuses. Many people argue that polyamorous relationships are the norm. But in fact, in their souls they suffer from complexes, trying to prove to themselves that they are needed and attractive through sex with several partners at the same time. Unfortunately, one can only dream of real trusting and warm relationships here.

But problematic relationships are not always associated with childhood. It happens that for some reason a person cannot find his soul mate for a long time. And the bar begins to decline as a result of fruitless searches. At a certain age, there may be a desire to be “just with someone.” Naturally, we are not talking about a normal union here.

A destructive relationship is a union without a future. To break the habitual pattern of behavior, you need to work through childhood traumas yourself or with the help of a specialist. Problems will not be solved on their own; there are techniques that will help get rid of the painful scenario. And one of them is awareness of which relationships are correct.

Goals and meaning of relationships

A natural question arises: what goals are pursued when entering into relationships at different stages of life, is there any meaning in them?

You can look at this from different points of view:

1. Everyone does this: they date, get married, give birth and raise children. I will do the same. There are two important criteria here:

• procreation programs;
• possible fear of being misunderstood and not accepted by society.

1. Often, when entering into any relationship, many try to extract some benefit from it without giving much in return. It can be different: material, spiritual. Here we can see a developed ego, a lack of intelligence and experience of normal relationships.
2. Another fear that people try to solve with the help of relationships is remaining alone in adulthood.
3. However, harmonious relationships should be considered the most optimal relationships. In such relationships, people care about each other. They are interesting to each other. Together they can grow, develop, learn from each other, and raise children. Help and support others. But it’s not easy to come to such a relationship; you need to have sufficient motivation, experience, and the need for just such a relationship. Change, compromise, be interesting to others. In general, there is a place to express yourself to the fullest.

5. And yet, does this make sense? And the meaning here is the same as in life itself. It is so inherent in man that he should not be alone. That a man or woman is only half of a whole, therefore they must be together, live as a couple, give birth and raise children, and continue the human race. So that when souls incarnate, they can gain on Earth the experience that they need.

Expert opinion

Polina Moroz

Psychologist

Ask a Question

A man sees a life partner in a woman, so he must be responsible for her choice, have his own goals and ideas about life together. Among the criteria for such a choice are: sexual attraction, attractive appearance, care for a man, an interesting inner world for him, and flexibility in relationships.

What kind of relationships can we call relationships in general?

First, I want to define the boundaries of the relationship. So that you clearly understand when you need to build relationships. Let's imagine: you met a girl, had a date and got sex. At what point did you start thinking about a relationship?

Before sex: wrong answer

After sex: correct answer

Why is that? But because all relationships begin only after sex. Before sex, there is not the required level of relationship between a guy and a girl to have a relationship. I wrote about this in detail in the article How to start a relationship with a girl?

But before they start, you need to be prepared for them: How to prepare for a relationship with a girl? Preparation includes studying the experiences of other people who are or have been in relationships. Personal experience: analysis and conclusions. Studying relevant literature, such as articles on relationships from my blog. So, if you are reading this article now, you are on the right track.

So, let's conclude: preparation for a relationship can happen at any time. There is an important nuance here: the choice of a girl. And this, in fact, happens before sex. Girls can be divided into those who are suitable for one night and then quick sex will be sufficient. And there are those who are good for something more : relationships.

How to find a girl for a relationship? Read the article and watch a video lesson on this topic. Having found girls, take time to study them: what kind of girls they are, what they can do and what they are good for. If you only see attractive looks, that's sex. If a girl attracts you in other ways, then perhaps she is suitable for a relationship. But to understand this, you need to have a couple of dates with a girl. Sex isn't important here.

When you realize that a particular girl is suitable for you for a relationship, seduce her. Having received sex and the girl’s mutual consent to spend time with you, we can consider that the relationship has begun. And here, if the partners need the relationship, they will take some action. If no one needs anything, then the meetings will stop or there will only be occasional sex. However, sex can also be called a relationship. And that's why…

Differences between the sexes

But man and woman are not the same creatures. There are a lot of differences between them. Among these, several stand out:

• Different needs. For example, a woman perceives a relationship as a relationship, but a man sees a specific woman in it. It is important for a man that his action and result be recognized, and he will consider the one who accepts his result to be his ideal chosen one. And women, due to their emotionality, love to be listened to and sympathized with.
• Intuition and logic. Everything is clear here: intuition is a more feminine concept, and logic is the lot of the stronger sex.

• Decisions and feelings. Women are more sensitive to everything, and men feel responsible for business and people. When making a certain choice, men always think about what can be done here, and women think about who to do it with.
• Independence when choosing a solution. Men, for the most part, always have their own opinions, but a woman needs to hear the opinions of others, and then make a decision on the issue.

But not all psychologists think so. Here's another example for you

Expert opinion

Evgeniy Makhlin

Family psychologist and psychotherapist

Ask a Question

The idea that men and women think differently is incorrect. First of all, we are all people, and there are few differences between us. Both sexes in a relationship want almost the same things: great sex, emotional intimacy, help with household chores, good social status

Probably, having some experience in relationships, everyone will be able to understand for themselves at a specific stage the main differences between a man and a woman, mostly psychological. This will help in the future to build harmonious relationships in your couple.

SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHERS 1 page

So far we have been concerned only with describing our fundamental relationship with another. This relationship has allowed us to explain the three dimensions of our body's existence. And although the original relation with the other is first in comparison with the relation of my body with the body of another, it became clear to us that knowledge of the nature of the body was inevitable for the entire study of the individual relations of my being with the being of the other. In fact, they presuppose, on both sides, facticity, that is, our existence as a body in the middle of the world. The body is not a tool or the reason for my relationship with another. But it constitutes meaning here, it marks boundaries; It is precisely as a body-in-a-situation that I perceive the transcended-transcendence of the other, and it is as a body-in-a-situation that I experience alienation in myself in favor of the other. We can explore these specific relationships now, since we are in fact what our body is. They are not mere specifications of a fundamental relation, although each includes the original relation with the other as its essential structure and its ground, they are entirely new ways of being for-itself. They actually characterize different positions of the for-itself in a world where the other exists. Each of them, therefore, represents in its own way a double relation: for-itself-for-another, in-itself. If, therefore, we begin to explain the structures of our most primary relations with others-in-the-world, we will achieve our goal. In fact, we asked ourselves at the beginning of this work about the relationship of the for-itself with the in-itself, but now we have found out that our task has turned out to be more difficult; there is a relation of the for-itself with the in-itself in the presence of the other.

When we have described this concrete fact, we will be able to draw conclusions about the fundamental relations of these three modes of being, and will be able, perhaps, to begin a metaphysical theory of being in general.

The for-itself as the nihilation of the in-itself is temporalized as a flight to.

In fact, it elevates its facticity, or being
(given
or past), or body to the in-itself, which it would be if it could be its own ground. This is precisely what is expressed in psychological and therefore inappropriate (though perhaps clearer) concepts when we say that the for-itself is trying to escape its actual existence, that is, its being-here as an in-itself, of which it is not at all the foundation, and that this flight takes place towards an impossible and always pursued future, where the for-itself would be in-itself,

377

that is, in-itself, which would turn out to be its own basis. The for-itself is thus both flight and pursuit; it both runs away from the in-itself and pursues it; the for-itself is the pursuer-pursued. However, in order to reduce the danger of psychological interpretation, let us recall the previous remarks about what the for-itself is not in the beginning,

in order to
then
achieve being;
in a word, we should not understand it as existing, which would be endowed with aspirations, as this glass is endowed with certain special qualities. This pursuing flight is not a given, which is added above all else to the being of the for-itself, but for itself
this flight itself
is it is no different from the original annihilation; to say that the for-itself is the pursuing-pursued, or that it is in the way of having its being in being, that it is not what it is, and is what it is not, is the same thing. The for-itself is not and cannot be the in-itself; but it is a relation to the in-itself, it is even the only possible relation to the in-itself, surrounded on all sides by the in-itself; it eludes him because it is nothing
and is not separated from him by
anything.
The for-itself is the basis of all negativity and all relation;
it is a relation.
As such, the appearance of the other strikes the for-itself to the very core. Through the other and for the other, the pursuing flight freezes into itself. The in-itself embraces it gradually, but it was already at once a radical negation of the factual, an absolute position of value, and at the same time permeated through and through with facticity; at least it escapes it through temporalization: its character of disintegrating wholeness gives it an eternal “elsewhere.” But it is precisely this integrity itself that the other places before himself and transcends it to his own in another place. It is this integrity that is totalized: for another I am irrevocably what I am, and my freedom itself is a given property of my being. Thus, the in-itself embraces me until the very future and anchors me completely in my very flight, which becomes foreseeable and contemplated - given

escape.
But this frozen escape is never the escape that I am for myself: it is fixed from the outside.
I experience this objectivity of my flight as an alienation that I can neither transcend nor know.
However, from the mere fact that I experience it and that it gives my flight the in-itself from which it runs, I must turn towards it and accept attitudes
towards it.
This is the beginning of my concrete relationship with another; they are completely controlled by my attitudes towards the object, as I am for another. And since the existence of the other reveals to me the being that I am, without me being able to assimilate this being and even understand it, this existence will motivate two opposing positions: the other looks
at me and as such holds the secret of my being;
he knows what I am;
Thus, the deep meaning of my being is outside of me, in absence; the other closed himself off from me. I can, however, try, since I run from the in-itself that I am without founding it, to deny this being that is given to me from the outside; that is, I can turn to the other in order to give him, for my part, objectivity, since the objectivity of the other

378

destructive to my objectivity for another. But, on the other hand, since the other as freedom is the basis of my being-in-itself, I can strive to get back this freedom, to master it, without eliminating its character of freedom. Indeed, if I could assimilate this freedom, which is the basis of my being-in-itself, I would be my own basis. To transcend the transcendence of another or, on the contrary, to absorb this transcendence into myself without eliminating its transcendental character, these are the two primary attitudes that I accept in relation to the other. The words here must be understood with caution; It is not true that I appear first and then “strive” to objectify or assimilate the other; but to the extent that the appearance of my being is an appearance in the presence of the other, to the extent that I am the pursuing flight and the pursuing-pursued, I find myself at the very core of my being a project of objectification and assimilation of the other. I

I am a test of another - that is the initial fact.
But this test of the other is in itself an attitude towards the other, that is, I can be in the presence of the other
without being this “in-presence” in the form of having in being. Thus, we have also described the structures of being for-itself, although the presence of another in the world is an absolute and in itself obvious fact, but accidental, that is, it cannot be deduced from the ontological structures of the for-itself.

These two positions that I am happen to be opposite. Each of them is the death of the other, that is, the defeat of one motivates the acceptance of the other. Consequently, there is no dialectic of my relationship with the other, but there is a circle, although each position is enriched by the defeat of the other. Thus, we will study one and the other sequentially. However, it should be noted that in the very depths of one the other always remains present, precisely because neither of the two can be maintained without contradiction. More precisely, each of them is in the other and gives rise to the death of the other; therefore, we can never get out of the loop. It is necessary not to lose sight of these remarks when embarking on an examination of fundamental attitudes towards the other. These attitudes arise and collapse in a circle; therefore, it doesn’t matter which one to start with - one or the other. In any case, you need to choose; We will first consider the actions by which the for-itself attempts to assimilate the freedom of the other.

1. First attitude towards another: love, language, masochism

Everything that is needed for me is also needed for someone else. While I am trying to free myself from the other's grip, the other is trying to free myself from mine; while I seek to enslave the other, the other seeks to enslave me. Here we are not talking about one-sided relations with the object-in-itself, but about mutual and mobile relations. Hence the descriptions that follow must be viewed from the angle of conflict.

Conflict is the original meaning of being-for-others.

379

If we start from the primary discovery of the other as a gaze,

then we must admit that we experience our incomprehensible being-for-another in the form of
possession.
I am owned by another;
the gaze of another shapes my body in its nakedness, gives birth to it, sculpts it, produces it as it is,
sees it as I will never see it.
The other holds the secret - the secret of what I am. He produces my being and through this possesses me, and this possession is nothing other than the consciousness of possessing me. And I, recognizing my objectivity, experience that he has this consciousness. Through consciousness, the other is for me at the same time the one who stole my being and the one who makes “that there is” being, which is my being. This is how I understand this ontological structure; I am responsible for my being-for-another, but I am not its basis; it appears for me, therefore, in the form of a contingent given, for which I, however, am responsible, and the other grounds my being, insofar as this being appears in the form of “is”; but he is not responsible for it, although he founded it in complete freedom, in and through his free transcendence. Thus, to the extent that I open myself to myself as responsible for my being, I take upon myself
this being as I am, in other words, I want to renew it, or, in more precise terms, I am the project of renewing my being.
This being is appresented to me as my being,
but from a distance, like the food of Tantalus, I want to grab it with my hand in order to take possession of it and found it with my freedom.
If in one sense my being-object is an unsupported contingency and a pure “possession” of me through another, then in another sense this being appears as an indication that it would be necessary for me to renew it and establish it in order to be my own. basis. But this is only conceivable if I assimilate the freedom of the other. Thus, my project of renewing myself is essentially a project of absorbing the other. In any case, this project must leave the nature of the other intact. This means the following: 1. For this purpose, I do not stop affirming the other, that is, denying to myself that I am another; the other, being the basis of my being, cannot dissolve in me without my being-for-another disappearing. If, therefore, I project to realize unity with the other, this means that I project to assimilate the alterity of the other, as such, as my own possibility. In fact, for me it is a question of becoming a being, acquiring the opportunity to take the point of view of another in relation to myself. But we are not talking, however, about acquiring a pure abstract possibility of knowledge. It is not a pure category
of the other that I project myself to acquire; such a category is incomprehensible and unthinkable. But the matter concerns the concrete test of another, experiencing and feeling; it is this concrete other as the absolute reality with which I want to unite in his otherness. 2. The other whom I want to assimilate is not an other-object at all. Or, if you like, my project of union with the other does not at all correspond to the recapture of my for-itself as myself and the translation of the transcendence of the other into my possibilities. For me it's not about

380

to eliminate my objectivity by objectifying the other, which would correspond to my liberation

from my being-for-other, but, on the contrary, I want to assimilate it precisely as viewing-other, and this project of assimilation presupposes a growing recognition of my viewed-being.
In a word, I identify completely with my viewed-being in order to support opposite myself the freedom of the viewing-other, and since my being-object is the only possible relation of me to another, then this is precisely the only being-object that can serve me as an instrument to effect the assimilation of the freedom of the other.
Thus, as a reaction to the defeat of the third ecstasy, the for-itself wants to identify itself with the freedom of the other as founding its being-in-itself.
To be another in oneself—an ideal that is always specifically meant in the form of being this other
—is the first meaning of relations with another;
this indicates that my being-for-another is pursued by a pointer to an absolute being, which would be itself as another and the other as itself, and which, freely positing as another its being-itself and being as itself -other would be being from the ontological proof, that is, God. This ideal could be realized if I overcame the original contingency of my relationship with the other, that is, if there were no internal negative relation between the negation by which the other is made other than I, and the negation by which I make myself other than him. We have seen that this contingency is irresistible: it is a fact of
my relationship with another, just as my body is
a fact
of my being-in-the-world.
Therefore, unity with another is not realizable. But it exists by right, since the assimilation of the for-itself and the other in the same transcendence would necessarily entail the disappearance of the property of otherness of the other. Thus, the condition for me to project the identity of another with me is precisely my persistent denial that I am another. Finally, this project of unification is a source of conflict,
because while I experience myself as an object for the other and project to assimilate him in and through this experience, the other experiences me as an object in the middle of the world and does not project to assimilate me at all.
It would therefore be necessary, since being-for-another presupposes a double internal negation, to act on the internal negation by which the other transcends my transcendence and makes me exist for the other, that is, to influence the freedom of the other.
This unrealizable ideal, since it pursues my project in the presence of another, cannot be compared to love, since love is an action, that is, an organic set of projects towards my own possibilities. But he is the ideal of love, its motive and its goal, its own value. Love as a primary relationship to another is a set of projects with which I intend to realize this value.

These projects put me in direct connection with the freedom of another. It is in this sense that love is a conflict. In the very

381

In fact, we noted that the freedom of another is the basis of my existence. But precisely because I exist through the freedom of another, I have no protection, I am in danger in this freedom; she shapes my being and makes me a being,

it gives and takes away values ​​from me and is the reason for the constant passive withdrawal of my being into itself.
Irresponsible, out of reach, this changeable freedom into which I enter can in turn introduce me to many different ways of being. My project to renew my being can be realized only if I seize this freedom and reduce it to a free being, subordinate to my freedom. At the same time, this turns out to be the only way in which I can act on the internally free negation in which the Other constitutes me into the Other, that is, in which I can prepare the ways for the future identification of the Other with me. Perhaps this will become clearer if we approach the problem from a purely psychological perspective. Why does a lover want to be loved?
If Love were a pure desire for physical possession, it could be easily satisfied in most cases. Proust's hero, for example, who settled his mistress with him and managed to make her completely financially dependent on himself, could see her and have her at any time of the day, should have felt calm. It is known, however, that he is tormented by anxiety. It is through consciousness that Albertine eludes Marcel, even if he is next to her, and therefore he does not know respite, as if he contemplated her in a dream. However, he is sure that love wants to take “consciousness” captive. But why does she want this? And How?

The concept of “property”, which is so often used to explain love, really cannot be primary. Why would I want to appropriate another to myself if it were not precisely the Other who gives me being? But this presupposes precisely a certain method of appropriation: it is the freedom of the other as such that we want to seize. And not at the request of power: the tyrant mocks love; he is satisfied with fear. If he seeks the love of his subjects, it is because of politics, and if he finds a more economical means of conquering them, he immediately uses it. On the contrary, the one who wants to be loved does not want the beloved being to be enslaved. He is not content with unrestrained and mechanical passion. He does not want to have a machine gun, and if they want to insult him, it is enough to present to him the passion of his loved one as the result of psychological determinism; the lover will feel devalued in his love and his being. If Tristan and Isolde had gone mad with a love potion, they would have been less interesting. It happens that the complete enslavement of a beloved being kills the love of the lover. The goal is accomplished, the lover is left alone again if the loved one turns into an automaton. Consequently, the lover does not want to own the beloved, as one owns a thing; it requires a special type of ownership. He wants to own freedom as freedom.

But, on the other hand, the lover cannot be satisfied with this sublime form of freedom, which is free and voluntary bestowal. Who would be satisfied with love that would be given as pure devotion to a given word? Who would agree to hear how

382

they say: “I love you because of my own free will I agree to love you and do not want to renounce this; I love you because I am true to myself”? Thus, the lover demands an oath and is irritated by it. He wants to be loved by freedom and demands that this freedom as freedom should no longer be free. He wants at the same time for the freedom of the Other to be determined by himself, in order to become love, and this not only at the beginning of the adventure, but at every moment, and at the same time for this freedom to be captivated by itself,

so that she turns on herself, as in madness, as in a dream, in order to desire her own captivity.
And this captivity must be a surrender of both freedom and fettering our hands. We will not desire loving determinism from another in love, not unattainable freedom, but freedom that plays
at determinism and persists in its game.
And the lover does not demand from himself to be the cause of
this radical transformation of freedom, but wants to be a unique and privileged occasion.
Indeed, he cannot want to be the cause without immediately plunging the beloved into the middle of the world as an instrument that can be transcended. This is not the essence of love. In Love, on the contrary, the lover wants to be “everything in the world” for the beloved. This means that he places himself on the side of the world; he is the one who summarizes and symbolizes the world; he is this,
which includes all other “this”, he agrees to be
an object
and is it.
But, on the other hand, he wants to be an object in which the freedom of the other would agree to be lost, and the other would agree to find his second facticity, his being and his ground of being - an object limited by transcendence, to which the transcendence of the Other transcends all other objects, but which she cannot transcend at all. However, he wants to establish the circle of freedom of the Other, that is, so that at every moment when the freedom of the Other agrees with this limit in its transcendence, this agreement would already be present as its driving force. This means that through the already chosen goal he wants to be chosen as a goal. This allows us to fully understand what the lover demands from the beloved: he does not want to influence
the freedom of the Other, but a priori to exist as the objective boundary of this freedom, that is, to be given immediately with it and in its very appearance as a boundary that it must accept to be free.
Therefore, what he requires is a gluing, a binding of the freedom of another with itself; this limit of structure is in reality given,
and the mere appearance of the given as the limit of freedom means that freedom
makes itself exist
within the given, being its own prohibition to cross it.
And this prohibition is considered by the lover at the same time
both as experienced, that is, as experienced, in a word, as factuality, and as voluntary. It must be voluntary, since it must arise only with the advent of freedom, which chooses itself as freedom. But it must only be experienced, since it must be an ever-present impossibility, a facticity that flows back to the freedom of the Other to its core. And this is expressed by the psychological requirement that the free decision to love me, which the beloved had previously made, slips

What is the secret to long-term relationships?

To create strong and long-term relationships, a man and a woman must work hard on themselves. First of all, it is necessary to understand each other. You should not conform to any standards; you must initially accept your other half for who she really is.

Develop positive qualities in yourself, show mutual care. In any case, try to understand your person, learn to feel him, and leave accusations without grounds for later.

If you constantly accuse each other of something, suspect each other of non-existent acts, you can quite quickly destroy everything that has been built for so long.

Here are just a few principles to follow:

• Whatever happens, talk to each other. There should be no omissions;
• In order not to doubt something, it is better to immediately ask an exciting question;
• Lying is not the answer. The truth is better, whatever it may be;
• Don't try to change him or her by force. Better change yourself;
• It is necessary to extinguish the conflict immediately;
• And if there is a quarrel, then try to end everything on a positive note. Namely: there is no need to be rude, make hasty decisions, and, if possible, turn an unpleasant conversation into a humorous statement.

Author's opinion

Vladimir Ekimov

Author of the article

Ask a Question

I would also like to say the following about long-term and harmonious relationships. For this to happen, it is necessary that at the first meetings, people have a feeling of “their” person, with whom it is at least interesting, there is something to talk about and something to do together. Then you can develop the relationship further. If there is no initial feeling, the soul or heart does not respond to this, then it will be problematic to do this. The relationship will most likely end in the early stages.

Business and professional

This is communication built between colleagues and based on purely professional activities. Ethics dictates its own rules: you cannot be rude or behave too provocatively. Mutual respect is important in a team; only in this case will normal interaction be possible. The work requires the individual to follow the rules of etiquette, otherwise people would not be able to understand each other and would be at a dead end. Good leadership requires quality collaboration.

READ Rules and subtleties of business negotiations

Friendly and friendly

Relationships can be very close and at the same time involve joint leisure. If people tend to spend a lot of time together, they can be called good friends. Shared hobbies bring people closer together. Sometimes one person helps another to develop emotionally and spiritually. They share their most intimate things with a friend, trying not to upset him in any way. In this case, interpersonal interaction is said to be beneficial. Sometimes friendships turn into mutual love.

Related

Patriarchy reigns in some families. It touches on issues of father and son, brother and sister. People understand that they have certain responsibilities towards each other. Often it is impossible to convince them of anything because they have a habit of doing things in a particular way. Family ties are recognized as one of the strongest. Only close people will not betray you, set you up, or make you feel awkward. Some parents consider it their duty to help their grown children. These are special relationships that cannot be subjected to logical analysis.

Conflict

Each of us has individual claims. Outlooks on life can change under the influence of certain factors. Disputes and disagreements arise when individuals cannot agree. Prolonged conflict leads to the formation of hostility. In this case, you have to resort to radical measures. Using extreme methods of influence, people lose relationships. As a result, trust is lost and mutual understanding disappears forever. Conflict situations occur both in the family and at work. Nowhere is a person immune from disappointments and insults. Various areas of relationships are being reconsidered.

Mental connection

It is called extrasensory, deep, affecting directly the person himself. Here two separate individuals undergo joint karmic lessons and learn to gain a deep understanding of the essence of what is happening. Reaching this level is not easy. You have to invest a lot of effort in your own self-development and strive for self-improvement. Mental ties connect the student and the teacher, the common man and his spiritual mentor.

READ Effective exercises for developing and improving diction

In moments of painful thought, we all need support. Only then do we feel needed and significant. The ability to reach spiritual heights grows along with the development of intuitive thinking and the desire to selflessly care for another person.

Why doesn’t anything serious work out (18-25 years old)?

Firstly, at this age, men and women have not yet even been formed as individuals.

Let's start with the boys. It’s the easiest thing here, you don’t need to talk much (like with girls). Most young boys have on their minds: parties, friends, entertainment, alcohol, girls, S*KS, S*KS, S*KS and again S*KS and as much as possible)). Boys, these are not men. They have not yet matured as individuals. These are the boys.

Inside him = there is no man inside. There is no pumped up strong, powerful, internal state. No core. No man. No character. No hardening. No self-confidence. No knowledge, no experience, no nothing. He has no money, no business, no wealth. There is nothing. He's a ragamuffin. He lives at the expense of his ancestors or on his own, but barely... In short, he is still a nobody and there is no way to call him. Loser. Jonah. By the way, many remain like that until the end of their days... besides, he’s still young, he’s not on a roll, we men are polygamous, we want a lot of girls, a lot, quantity, to fuck them all, to screw them all up.

What kind of relationship is there)) today he is with you, in the evening he saw a girl who winked at him = that’s it, the end)), tomorrow he is still there with someone, he doesn’t pass by a skirt, nothing will hold him back next to you when he is young, and the hormones are acting up)) but this is already becoming funny, so what kind of serious relationship is there?))

I'll even tell you this. You can try in everything for him, just go all out, be an ideal woman, ideal, give him everything - what a woman should give in full, etc. and so on. in general, it is clear that there are no ideal people at all, everyone has their own shortcomings, but in general I say, so, attention: in the end, he is still young, and he may want a FEMALE, MORE. As much as possible. He hasn't had enough of a walk yet. Understand. This has nothing to do with you. This is what can happen to a boy... even if not at first, but years later - very often this happens to many. As a result, they change later...

Besides, what kind of relationship is there when he has nothing? No money. What kind of guy is this without money? )) This is not a man. The main function of a man is to be a breadwinner. I've already talked about this a hundred times. Imagine yourself, where will you live? It's up to the man to decide. But he doesn't have an apartment. And maybe there is no money at all, not even to rent an apartment. How will you live? Making ends meet? Do you need it? And who will feed you, clothe you, protect you, etc. and so on. Who? And who will take care of the offspring when they come? You will need even more money, because there are already three of you. ... in short, think about it...

You don't have the right to make mistakes about your partner. If you make mistakes = you will pay for it. They will use you, just fuck you and throw you away. In the end, you'll end up walking on both hands. And in the end, no one will need you anymore. Because natural selection operates. And you are already second-rate meat, not fresh, with wild mileage. Understand?

I'm not even talking about the fact that in our time it is very important to fuck without protection and give birth to a child when he is young. This is generally the height of idiocy. And then, the boy (as happens most often) backs off because he’s not talking like a child, and you’re stuck in life = only now you’re looking for the standards of a man.

In short, your task is to look for (choose) a worthy MALE. If you want a relationship = not boys, but men. Someone who is already in money, wealthy, promising, has a car, has his own apartment, etc. and so on. in short, competitive. Who doesn’t just chatter about anything, but with ambitions, with goals, a successful, smart, handsome, adequate, well-fed, in general, a worthy man. Your main task in terms of choosing a partner is to MINIMIZE RISKS IN LIFE! Remember, this is like Our Father!

And my mother's snot. A man, a girl with balls between her legs. Boy. Boy. Teenager. Etc. and so on. = these are huge risks for you, nothing good will come of them. I give you a 100% guarantee. We need a man!

Now girls. In general, such fucked up things are going on with them that it’s simply absolutely impossible to get involved with them (to plan something seriously). Simply categorically. Because = anyway, in the end, nothing serious will work out with her. You will only waste a lot of your precious time, nerves, strength, energy, money and other resources. When you read to the end, you will understand.