The "good" of a relationship.

[truth_justice]

Greetings all,

What is the good of a relationship? I am referring to a male-female relationship beyond friendship.

[hsandman]

Greetings all,

What is the good of a relationship? I am referring to a male-female relationship beyond friendship.

Q) What is the pay off in having male/female relationship i.e SEX? Is it good? <- Is that the question?

A) Damned kids.

They say heroin is better.

[Carl G]

Warm hugs and help with the house payments. Kids if you want them.

[truth_justice]

Q) What is the pay off in having male/female relationship i.e SEX? Is it good? <- Is that the question?

No. Initially I too though sex was the good. But soon after I realized that sex isn't unique to a relationship. Friends with benefits is a counterexample.

Consider the following analogy: The "good" of a car is its ability to get you from point A to point B. Any decent car has this "good". The good of a relationship is __________________. Any decent relationship has this "good".

Sex, cookings, kids, or any material thing does not seem to be the answer as they can be easily debunked.

One possible answer is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Its similar to sharing life's ups and downs.

However that answer also isn't unique as I can't see why it is only possible in a relationship.

Warm hugs and help with the house payments. Kids if you want them.

This can't be the "good". For not all relationships are based on "hugs and help with house payments". Some people don't even own houses, and some that do, don't have payments. And yet they can still be in a relationship.

[Pincho Paxton]

Greetings all,

What is the good of a relationship? I am referring to a male-female relationship beyond friendship.

I feel that our relationships could be a lot better. It's like our true partners are not even women sometimes. (Not Men) Just seems that we have been broken away from something that we want to get back to. A far distant relationship that broke away from us. Like a parent that left us as soon as we were born. I don't feel very compatible with a female. Just last night I fell out with my girlfriend, and felt that she could not understand male emotions at all. She came back today, but I have a wary feeling that she could easily make the same mistake again in a few days time. (Phoning an ex, and saying that she loves him with me sitting next to her. What was she thinking?) Later she said that he was controlling. She had to say what he wanted her to say.

Anyway, using this experience, I can describe what I feel. I feel that she took root in my mind. Like a plant/tree/flower with the roots literally growing through my synapses. to get her away from me is to rip the roots from my mind. Quite destructive, leaving some of the roots stuck there.

The good was for me to help her to live. She has several illnesses which I am trying to reverse. I figured that Potassium was the key. She ran to me today, which is good for me, but also nice to see with her illnesses seeming to be getting better.

[Carl G]

Warm hugs and help with the house payments. Kids if you want them.

This can't be the "good". For not all relationships are based on "hugs and help with house payments". Some people don't even own houses, and some that do, don't have payments. And yet they can still be in a relationship.

Don't take it so literally. Fellowship, and the possibility for economic benefit.

[truth_justice]

Don't take it so literally. Fellowship, and the possibility for economic benefit.

I did interpret it literally, didn't I? Shame on me! However, this next answer is too general and can apply to a business partner.

The problem that am I having is to "tight down" and "bound" the answer to a relationship. In other words, to show that the answer is unique to a relationship. The good of a relationship should be the good of a relationship and only of a relationship. There are a lot of overlaps that happen between association, partnership, friendship, family and relationship. The good of a relationship should be isolated, so to speak, from the good of association, partnership, friendship and family.

Does that make sense?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The good of a relationship should be isolated, so to speak, from the good of association, partnership, friendship and family.

And this isolating is exactly what you shouldn't do in your thinking: it's all about a combination of one of more factors like association, partnership, friendship, parenting, bonding, elevation of anxiety ('comforting') and power distribution. You're right that there isn't anything in this list that couldn't be experienced elsewhere but a demand for some magical uniqueness to these relationships seems like creating a dilemma where there's none. Monogamous relationships are convenient ways to get a lot of different things at the same place, added to the instinctual and traditional factors around us telling us that it should be done like this. There's even ridicule and questioning if this instinct doesn't materialize in someone's life.

Perhaps you're thinking of the psychological dimensions as witnessed in romance in the sense of "feeling in love" and jealousy, emotional roller coasters and such things. It's hard to get those elsewhere in that amount. I believe this type of psychology can function like a layer on top of relationships; it uses relationship purely as vehicle: they are not necessarily good for stability never mind sanity outside initial courtship (and even there can be destructive) and this is why they fade to the background very naturally leaving many couples behind wondering how to 'rekindle' their romance, as if they think all other elements are not enough to justify the trouble?

[truth_justice]

You're right that there isn't anything in this list that couldn't be experienced elsewhere but a demand for some magical uniqueness to these relationships seems like creating a dilemma where there's none.

Well, why do you think there isn't any dilemma here? We use the word relationship to supposedly identify something unique. Just like we use the word lion to identify something unique - even if this unique thing is a composite - that is have many parts to it. I am mistaken in this?

Take for example the word water. Obviously water is a composite of H2O. Yet water has neither the property of Hydrogen nor Oxygen. The combination of those two elements create something unique which we label as water. In a similar manner, the combination of two individuals results in something new - a relationship - supposedly. Hence we uniquely identify this composition with its own word.

If there is a such a thing as a relationship, be it be a mental or physical entity or both, I suppose we must be able to distinguish it among other things - even if it is a composite. If so, we can ask what is its good.

Perhaps I am mistaken, if so please point out my mistake.

[Boyan]

I agree with you that a relationship is something unique. Let's see what at least some of the elements of a relationship, a male-female, romantic relationship if you will, might be.


- Physical attraction, emotional attachment, sexual relations, having things in common, in varying degrees of course, like affinities, interests, abilities etc

Now what good would there be for a participant would of course depend on what he valued and wanted and whether that relationship met that. If you ,for example, wanted and therefore saw as good (although we can't equal wanting with what is good for a person so let's just suppose what you wanted was good for you in your opinion) the sharing of emotions, intimacy of the physical and maybe psychological kind, expressing your sexuality and the relationship enabled that than we could see it as good.

[Carl G]

I agree with you that a relationship is something unique. Let's see what at least some of the elements of a relationship, a male-female, romantic relationship if you will, might be.

Physical attraction, emotional attachment, sexual relations, having things in common, in varying degrees of course, like affinities, interests, abilities etc

Those things are not necessarily unique to a male-female romantic relationship, so, what's your point?

[Boyan]

I agree with you that a relationship is something unique. Let's see what at least some of the elements of a relationship, a male-female, romantic relationship if you will, might be.

Physical attraction, emotional attachment, sexual relations, having things in common, in varying degrees of course, like affinities, interests, abilities etc

Those things are not necessarily unique to a male-female romantic relationship, so, what's your point?

I presented my point in the next paragraph. I don't see what point I made in the above quote.

What is your point? That these things can exist in a homosexual relationship as well? I put male-female because that was what the thread starter referred to. I said that romantic relationship is unique because it consists of different individuals and leads to something new - it is something new.

[daybrown]

Hominids evolved in small villages or tribes, and dont do so well in urban masses. 1/3 of them found someone at puberty and remained bonded to them for life. 1/3 went thru what we now call serial monogamy, and 1/3 were always promiscuous. Using the model of the first third has not worked out that well for the rest of us.

But in no case was sex entirely limited to the bonded relationship. To minimize inbreeding in small gene pools, there were always rituals or exchanges with other groups. Then too, in an era when people died early and often, "death do you part" didnt usually take very long. Visit a graveyard; the stones carved during the early 20th century flu pandemic often match the total number of other stones already there.

The village provided a social and emotional safety net beyond the monogamous relationship; modern urbanites tend to dump all that need on a single individual, and a lot of us are just not up to handling the casework. Formerly, the shaman or witch saw emotional distress and stepped in to handle it before things got out of hand. Shouting matches didnt lead to murder.

So, this romantic ideal, which suits some people so well, has a been a disaster for many of us, and filled our prisons and death rows. I dont mind if someone wants to search for the perfect mate. Since I was born on a farm with large farm families all around, I knew I was not perfect, and didnt see that anyone else was either. We were all just trying to get along and make do with relationships the same as with everything else.

Monogamy was easier for those folks because there was nobody else on the farm to screw around with, nobody saw anyone to flirt with at work, and things never got out of hand. The Yeoman culture that came to America had lived like this for hundreds of years, and every winter, when cabin fever got worse, those men who were most inclined to abuse wives and kids filtered themselves out of the gene pool because there was no witch, shaman, or elder there to stop the shouting. And as long as people stayed on the farm, in an environment that was instinctively familiar, it worked. But not in the city.

[truth_justice]

Now what good would there be for a participant would of course depend on what he valued and wanted and whether that relationship met that.

Certainly there is that. But that is the reason why one might want a relationship. Shall we suppose that a relationship is what you want it to be, and it is therefore nothing more? Shall we also assume the good of a relationship is equivalent to the reason for the relationship? Think about what you want from your computer vs. what your computer can actually do/is.

Suppose someone came up to you and asked you , "Why do people work?", and you replied, "For money, of course!".
Certainly that is true to an extent. Now if the same person asked you "Why money?", what would you say? There is two ways to answer this:

1) Give a particular reason like - to buy food, clothes, etc.

OR

2) Point out that money has the power to buy things

The second answer is generic enough and applies over a large area. The first answer is an instance of the second.

What I am looking for is an answer more like the second. I say like because even the second answer is not good enough. For, if the same person asked once again, "Why the power to purchase things?", we have to look deeper and point out certain human needs and desires. Even after this inquiry, one can still ask, "Why that need/desire?".

But again, I might be approaching this the wrong way.

[Boyan]

Now what good would there be for a participant would of course depend on what he valued and wanted and whether that relationship met that.

Certainly there is that. But that is the reason why one might want a relationship. Shall we suppose that a relationship is what you want it to be, and it is therefore nothing more?

Let's say your girlfriend has her own desires from a relationship, and that some of them are not what you desire. Would you desire her desires to become fulfilled? You might want this for two reasons:

1. In order to compromise, because you get some of your desires fulfilled, not all, but in order to get those some desires fulfilled you must fulfill the desires of your girlfriend, so you accept that compromise.

2. You have a desire to fulfill the desires of your partner, not because it means simply having your desires fulfilled, but out of actually wanting to fulfill the desires of your partner.

Or it could be both which is most probably.

Shall we also assume the good of a relationship is equivalent to the reason for the relationship?

This is an interesting question. No we don't, we can't, because there might be things coming out of that relationship that we had not thought about but see it as good once we realize them.

2) Point out that money has the power to buy things

The second answer is generic enough and applies over a large area. The first answer is an instance of the second.

What I am looking for is an answer more like the second. I say like because even the second answer is not good enough. For, if the same person asked once again, "Why the power to purchase things?", we have to look deeper and point out certain human needs and desires. Even after this inquiry, one can still ask, "Why that need/desire?".

Here, in this analogy we need to clarify what we get out of work/money. If one needs to work/earn money in order to live than we can't ask him further than that, without asking why do you have a desire to stay alive. If one can stay alive without work but works because he wants more than just food, clothes and shelter than we could ask him why does he wants those things.

Now, one can live without a relationship, that is, without the things it provides, but as with working to get more than the bare necessities it does involve one's desires. And, yes here we arrive to the question of why those desires?




.

[Carl G]

I agree with you that a relationship is something unique. Let's see what at least some of the elements of a relationship, a male-female, romantic relationship if you will, might be.

Physical attraction, emotional attachment, sexual relations, having things in common, in varying degrees of course, like affinities, interests, abilities etc

Those things are not necessarily unique to a male-female romantic relationship, so, what's your point?

I presented my point in the next paragraph. I don't see what point I made in the above quote.

What is your point?

You said a male-female romantic relationship is unique and then proceeded to list by example attributes which are not unique to a male-female romantic relationship. Most of them could be found in a relationship with a co-worker or sibling.

I said that romantic relationship is unique because it consists of different individuals and leads to something new - it is something new.

All relationships consist of individuals and are something new, so this is not in any way profound or indicative.

The "above quote" you referred to as containing your point is:

Now what good would there be for a participant would of course depend on what he valued and wanted and whether that relationship met that. If you ,for example, wanted and therefore saw as good (although we can't equal wanting with what is good for a person so let's just suppose what you wanted was good for you in your opinion) the sharing of emotions, intimacy of the physical and maybe psychological kind, expressing your sexuality and the relationship enabled that than we could see it as good.

I guess your point is that a relationship is good if you find it good, i.e. fulfills you. This might be sufficient reason individually and subjectively, but does not answer in any objective way (does relationship as an 'institution', if you will, have any intrinsic benefit?) and does not address the fact that most relationships which individuals find 'good,' are in fact dysfunctional, co-dependent, and based on delusion.

[Carl G]

Hominids evolved in small villages or tribes, and dont do so well in urban masses. 1/3 of them found someone at puberty and remained bonded to them for life. 1/3 went thru what we now call serial monogamy, and 1/3 were always promiscuous. Using the model of the first third has not worked out that well for the rest of us.

But in no case was sex entirely limited to the bonded relationship. To minimize inbreeding in small gene pools, there were always rituals or exchanges with other groups. Then too, in an era when people died early and often, "death do you part" didnt usually take very long. Visit a graveyard; the stones carved during the early 20th century flu pandemic often match the total number of other stones already there.

The village provided a social and emotional safety net beyond the monogamous relationship; modern urbanites tend to dump all that need on a single individual, and a lot of us are just not up to handling the casework. Formerly, the shaman or witch saw emotional distress and stepped in to handle it before things got out of hand. Shouting matches didnt lead to murder.

So, this romantic ideal, which suits some people so well, has a been a disaster for many of us, and filled our prisons and death rows. I dont mind if someone wants to search for the perfect mate. Since I was born on a farm with large farm families all around, I knew I was not perfect, and didnt see that anyone else was either. We were all just trying to get along and make do with relationships the same as with everything else.

Monogamy was easier for those folks because there was nobody else on the farm to screw around with, nobody saw anyone to flirt with at work, and things never got out of hand. The Yeoman culture that came to America had lived like this for hundreds of years, and every winter, when cabin fever got worse, those men who were most inclined to abuse wives and kids filtered themselves out of the gene pool because there was no witch, shaman, or elder there to stop the shouting. And as long as people stayed on the farm, in an environment that was instinctively familiar, it worked. But not in the city.

More socio-blog on the romance of our rural past and Ozark mountain living!

"Corn, the Flatlander Feed" on every license plate, bro. Small agricultural groups of 73-98 individuals forever.

[truth_justice]

This is an interesting question. No we don't, we can't, because there might be things coming out of that relationship that we had not thought about but see it as good once we realize them.

I think it was unfair for me to ask the question in the given context. You will see why in moment.

Here, in this analogy we need to clarify what we get out of work/money. If one needs to work/earn money in order to live than we can't ask him further than that, without asking why do you have a desire to stay alive. If one can stay alive without work but works because he wants more than just food, clothes and shelter than we could ask him why does he wants those things.

We don't really need to clarify such a thing. We can suppose that money is means to an end. The end could be whatever the person wants. I was using the example as an analogy - as you pointed out. I was indicating the type of answer that would be sufficient for my question, while at the same time pointing out the difficulty in coming up with the answer.

That said, I have come up with an answer:

***
The good of an association is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. This maxim applies to relationships, but also to friendships, partnerships, and other associations.

In other words to a certain extend the following are true:

1) The good of a relationship is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.

2) The good of a friendship is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.

Obviously at this point friendships and relationships have the same good. Since we are after the good of a relationship, a distinction needs to be made.

What distinguishes friendships from relationships is the degree to which the maxim applies to each one - applying more to relationships than friendships. However that must be shown.

In a friendship, each of the individuals have their own separate goal(s). If they happen to have the same goal(s), it must be so by accident. What friends do is help each other achieve their individuals goals, sometimes directly, and often indirectly.

In particular, when one friend helps another, he does so knowing the help he has provided will benefit his friend, not him - in a sense he is working for free. The only benefit he receives in return is the friendship of his friend - or the potential help of his friend in the future. That is the good of a friendship, the definition of friendship, and the reason for friendship.

In a relationship, each individual might have their own separate goal(s). Just like friendship, each individual helps the other to achieve their individual goal(s). More often than not, the individuals agree on a common goal(s), which neither of them can achieve on their own. This is a major distinction between friendship and relationship.

More importantly, when the individuals work together towards a common goal(s), both individuals achieve more and expect to share the benefits as a result. Both expect a share proportional to the amount of afford invested by each - which differs greatly from friendship. That is the good of a relationship, the definition of a relationship, and the reason for a relationship.

Since the benefit of a relationship is greater or at least equal to a friendship, a relationship has a greater potential to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.

I'm using the terms benefit and goal in the most general sense. A benefit could be something materialistic or something psychological or both. Same goes for goal.

[Boyan]

Those things are not necessarily unique to a male-female romantic relationship, so, what's your point?

I presented my point in the next paragraph. I don't see what point I made in the above quote.

What is your point? [/quote]
You said a male-female romantic relationship is unique and then proceeded to list by example attributes which are not unique to a male-female romantic relationship. Most of them could be found in a relationship with a co-worker or sibling.[/quote]

Sexual relations? And emotional attachment is different.

I said that romantic relationship is unique because it consists of different individuals and leads to something new - it is something new.

All relationships consist of individuals and are something new, so this is not in any way profound or indicative.

It is unique in relation to other types of relationships. This is self evident.

The "above quote" you referred to as containing your point is:

Now what good would there be for a participant would of course depend on what he valued and wanted and whether that relationship met that. If you ,for example, wanted and therefore saw as good (although we can't equal wanting with what is good for a person so let's just suppose what you wanted was good for you in your opinion) the sharing of emotions, intimacy of the physical and maybe psychological kind, expressing your sexuality and the relationship enabled that than we could see it as good.

I guess your point is that a relationship is good if you find it good, i.e. fulfills you. This might be sufficient reason individually and subjectively, but does not answer in any objective way (does relationship as an 'institution', if you will, have any intrinsic benefit?) and does not address the fact that most relationships which individuals find 'good,' are in fact dysfunctional, co-dependent, and based on delusion.

My point explained it, because I took into account that there is no objective goodness. There is no intrinsic benefit to anything that we know of. Do you want me to debate the problem of universals with you?

(although we can't equal wanting with what is good for a person so let's just suppose what you wanted was good for you in your opinion)