Why don't relationships seem to last?

[Mark Arbour]

I was just thinking- the last two generations: 60-79, 80-2000 were the first two generations with extremely high divorce rates. At least half of all people now come from a divorced family. This has GOT to be a big influence on how realtionships function- or dysfunction.

 

If you learn growing up that relationships are temporary and that people are disposable, the answer to this riddle is obvious.

 

I think that's because divorce became an actual option during those generations.

 

I think what came before that must have been much worse. Being stuck in a marriage with someone who abused you, physically or emotionally, and not being able to get out of it. Being stuck in a relationship with someone that wouldn't bake you a cake. That kind of hell.

 

So I'd take temporary and fleeting over hell any day.

[Varrsinn]

I think relationships fail largely to do with the fact that finding someone with the same level of commitment is difficult. Chances are you will find somone with less or more commitment and future perspective than yourself. less commitment and your frightened, too much commitment and your scary. But dont take anything i say to heart, im far to young for my comments on commitment to have substance.

 

Incase your wondering im the overly commited one. Cant help instantly falling in love and dreaming of an amazing future ahead!

[writeincode]

I think that's because divorce became an actual option during those generations.

 

I think what came before that must have been much worse. Being stuck in a marriage with someone who abused you, physically or emotionally, and not being able to get out of it. Being stuck in a relationship with someone that wouldn't bake you a cake. That kind of hell.

 

So I'd take temporary and fleeting over hell any day.

Agreed. Relationship - Cake =

[moonwolf]

why don't relationship seems to last ???

 

an easy question but a complicated answer goes with it

 

first and foremost communication is key to any relationship (love, friendship, family and business as well). Now this is one of those things that are easy to say hard to do though.

 

In order to have a healthy relationship, one must be able to open up completely to the other as well... not saying that everything needs to be said about ourselves but the willingness to reveal our weak point is a definite plus in any healthy relationship in order to stay healthy.

 

I can't think of anything else for now but with what people pointed out I guess we have the complicated answer I was talking about

 

Jason aka Moonwolf

[myself_i_must_remake]

why would they last?

[moonwolf]

why would they last?

 

because for some people that what they want to find that perfect someone and not go through it five times per week

 

Some people actually don't want a relationship and that's just fine by me at least they know what they want and what they don't want

 

worst people are the ones that say they want a relationship when in fact they only wanted to be in your pants

 

been there

 

at least I don't have to go through this anymore

 

Love ya babe for the past 366 days

 

Jason aka Moonwolf

[myself_i_must_remake]

hahaha.

[AFriendlyFace]

I was just thinking- the last two generations: 60-79, 80-2000 were the first two generations with extremely high divorce rates. At least half of all people now come from a divorced family. This has GOT to be a big influence on how realtionships function- or dysfunction.

 

If you learn growing up that relationships are temporary and that people are disposable, the answer to this riddle is obvious.

 

 

I think that's because divorce became an actual option during those generations.

 

I think what came before that must have been much worse. Being stuck in a marriage with someone who abused you, physically or emotionally, and not being able to get out of it. Being stuck in a relationship with someone that wouldn't bake you a cake. That kind of hell.

 

So I'd take temporary and fleeting over hell any day.

 

 

I agree with you both. I definitely think it's better that there is the option of ending an unhappy, miserable relationship, but I think that's very clearly part of the reason why relationships might be prone to end.

 

I think the though that the "option" of being able to relatively end a relationship does frequently lead to the dissolution of a partnership which might have "bounced back" and ultimately continued to be a positive experience for both parties. The tricky thing is being able to tell when it's best to end a relationship and when it's best to "fight" for its survival.

 

I don't think that the distinguishing factors are necessarily related to the degree of affection and love or even the general "health" of the relationship. I think it's more about honestly looking at what each person needs and wants and what the other is able and willing to provide (without making unreasonable concessions of their own needs and wants).

 

I have a friend who broke up with his serious boyfriend of several years. They still loved each other (and still do), they had remained fateful to each other, and they were still even mostly getting along. The reason they broke up was because their relationship had become more of a familiar habit, and more of a close friendship than a romantic relationship. In general I don't think that's necessarily a problem. I think a lot of romantic relationships go in that direction and I think that very often that sort of relationship continues to be satisfying and pleasant for the people involved. In this case though, they also saw themselves heading in different directions in life in general. They had different goals. They also realized that at this point in their lives they still wanted the romance. So, they broke up in a very amicable, loving, supportive way and each went in his own direction. I'm not sure what happened to the other guy (last I heard he was doing okay), but my friend is very happy and has found a new relationship (actually now it's been going on for several months) that has components he needed and is still also quite affectionate, happy, and calm.

 

I think this is a good example of when it's better to "warmly" end things and keep each other as relatively untainted loved ones and allies, than to drag things out and have the relationship grow very bitter or cold as the resentment and hopelessness grows.

 

Conversely, I have friends with less than completely harmonious relationships that still essentially "work" and are better options for the people involved than breaking up would be.

 

As I said, I think the important thing is being able to look at the relationship honestly and to act with the courage and determination to do what needs to be done in the best interest of both people, be that fighting hard to make the relationship work, or realizing that it's run its course and that it's time to let go.

 

 

Just my thoughts

 

Kevin

Edited February 24, 2009 by AFriendlyFace

[Former Member]

congrats jason on a year!

[Paul Schroder]

I think expectations play the biggest part in why relationships don't last. We expect to find Mr Perfect no matter how many people we have to cast off in order to find him. Mr. Perfect doesn't exist when all we have to choose from are other human beings. We all have our flaws and imperfections and to be truly loved someone must be willing to overlook them.

 

So he isn't the most handsome, intelligent or richest guy out there. But if he's willing to overlook and downplay your character flaws, you've found yourself a keeper. Now it's up to you to accentuate his positives and learn to deal with his negatives, just as he does with you. You have to want the relationship to work and you have to make the relationship work.

 

Spoken by someone who isn't in a relationship.

 

So... meh, what do I know?

[Dion]

I was having a discussion with another forum member and realized I'd put in my two cents without explanation. I'd like to elaborate on my sentiments a bit utilizing the comments I made to that member:

 

I'm merely stating that people's commitment to one another has lessened of late because of their own self-absorption.

 

The average 'long-term' relationship used to last 15 or 20 years - or longer. These days you'd be lucky to get ten years out of it.

 

It just isn't as important as it used to be to most people. I'll admit there are probably a few out there with 'old-fashioned' values but not nearly as many as there used to be.

 

Sad but true, from what I've seen.

 

I am one of those people that would like to be in a long-term relationship and have gotten over the misty-eyed age of looking for Ms/Mr Perfect. Now I just want the right one, not the perfect one.

 

But too many times I have gotten involved with someone who was far too interested in their own gains, either initially or ultimately, to work at a long-term relationship. Either they started out interested in being one of a couple and broke it off to pursue their own agenda or they started out the relationship looking for what they could get out of it for themselves and left when their expectations weren't met.

 

There are too many throwaway couples - straight or not - these days. There are very, very few people willing to put long-term effort into being half of a whole.

 

There are no fairytale endings anymore. You don't get the two soul-mates who meet and end up spending their lives together forever and ever, amen. It just doesn't happen.

 

Of course these were edited to remove the more personal aspects of the conversation but this is the bulk of it.

 

Apparently I'm 'jaded'.

[kitten]

Looking through the above responses I get the impression that most people consider that it's a bad thing if relationships don't last forever (or at least for a very long time).

 

Although I agree it is nice when relationships do last happily for a long time, I don't think it's a bad thing when both people realise that the relationship has run its course and decide to break up and move on. For one thing, it is usually impossible to know if a relationship will work until the participants have tried it out. That is why there is dating, engagement periods etc. However, it's my impression that nowadays people enter into supposedly committed relationships after much shorter engagements or periods of dating. Thus they are having the trial period as part of what they call the relationship, and if such a relationship doesn't work, it's not a 'failure' but a learning experience.

 

If you really think about it, even after a successful and suitably long trial period, the chances that a relationship will last a long time (10+ years) in the absence of external pressure is quite small. By external pressure, I mean things like: marriage with divorce made difficult; necessity to stay together for children; financial dependence of one partner on the other; social pressures. In past times, another pressure was that the main support network for an individual was family, but nowadays, because we have more support from society as a whole (e.g. child welfare, unemployment benefits, etc.) we are not so physically dependant on personal relationships with individuals.

 

Over a period of 10+ years most people change, and younger people change much more. Isn't that one of the main arguments against relationships between (legal-age) teens and much older guys - that if an 18 yo and a 36 yo enter into a relationship? Even if two younger people (say under 25) of similar age get together, it is likely that they will change at different rates and so not remain compatible.

 

We can control how we change, much less how our partner will change, and it may well be that at 30+ years old we and our partner are both different people than we were at 21 years old, and we no longer even like one another. Maybe if people didn't enter into relationships until they were older (say 25+) then they would have a better chance of staying together, not only because they may change less with age after that, but also because their expectations of a relationship are more realistic and they know what they want from it.

 

When we evolved as a pair-bonding species, and for most of our history until relatively recent times, the average life span was considerably less than 40 years, and the chance of both partners living so long was very small. Thus there is no natural reason for us evolve mechanisms to maintain relationships for 10+ years, especially once the children are no longer infants.

 

Of course, all relationships go through difficult times and we often hear that a relationship can be rescued by work, perseverence and patience. This is true for the rough patches in relationships which are still beneficial to and wanted by both partners. However, it's not the rough patches that cause the breakdown of a relationship, it is the lack of will to keep the relationship going. Why should either partner want to work, persevere, and have patience when the simple fact is that he or she simply doesn't want that relationship anymore?

 

Yes, we can celebrate relationships that have remained happy for a long time, but one reason to celebrate them is because they are both practically and theoretically rare.

 

It is right that we should celebrate the good luck of people who are in such relationships, just as we celebrate their good luck in other things. However, we shouldn't assume there is something 'wrong' when people don't have such good luck. I'm happy if my friend wins the lottery, but I don't think there is any 'fault' if he doesn't, and if his relationship doesn't work out, I won't say that his relationship 'failed' or suggest that he could have saved it if only he'd worked harder, persevered more, or been more patient.

 

Kit

[Sir Galahad]

That's the million dollar question, & I really don't think there is a clear cut answer, barring the obvious. Sometimes I think it's just too easy to throw something away & start again.

That sounds clinical I know, but as I view it & people around me, harldly anyone wants to try anymore. Some people are so self absorbed, they fail to see what's happening 'til it's too late. I remember cos I was one of them once. Have learned a lot of lessons the hard way by many a failed relationship, some of them really bad & destructive.

 

Dan was right when he said that it takes a hell of a lot of work to keep things together. I mean, I've been with my guy for what will be 5 years in March, & he's not perfect by any means, by the same token neither am I. Some things he does irritates the hell outta me sometimes, but the upshot is I love him.

But I think in all that time we've had 2 really bad rows, but the fallout has never lasted any longer than a day. For us it's just communication, if ya don't talk your doomed, if you bottle stuff up then all it does is eat at you.

 

Is there ever a Mr or Miss perfect? I very much doubt it. You just love someone for who they are, flaws & all.

[Tipdin]

People today seem to be so self-absorbed. Either trying to be perfectly perfect in every way or trying to be completely disconnected from others and any consequences of their own actions.

 

In order to be in a fulfilling, long-term relationship, one must believe in a greater good. That the relationship is worth giving up some minor desires or needs. We don't teach children how to sacrifice and work cooperatively anymore.

 

I've been in a relationship for 20 years so far. This being in love stuff ain't easy! But if the two people involved have some common interests and goals, there is a foundation on which to build. But it takes TWO to make it work.

 

Most of us are so needy, (though we'd never admit it!) that our needs overwhelm the relationship, straining it beyond repair.

 

Nobody is perfect. Don't expect your partner to be - nor yourself.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Tipdin

[kitten]

In order to be in a fulfilling, long-term relationship, one must believe in a greater good. That the relationship is worth giving up some minor desires or needs.

 

I'm not sure I understand exactly what is meant by 'a greater good' here. However, if it means something practical rather than something philosophical, then I agree. That implies that each relationship must be considered individually on its merits. What are the 'greater goods' in that particular relationship and how minor are the desires or needs that are sacrificed?

 

A relationship that is worth sacrificing for must provide both parties (and/or any dependent children) with something that is worth those sacrifices. The idea that a relationship is a good thing just because it's a relationship is just as absurd as the idea that any relationship is better than no relationship at all.

 

A relationships is not a mystical goal but merely another form of human activity, and should be judged accordingly. Are the benefits worth the sacrifices? Once one or both partners no longer wish to be in the relationship then there is no point in making sacrifices for something they don't really want.

 

Kit

[Graeme]

A relationships is not a mystical goal but merely another form of human activity, and should be judged accordingly. Are the benefits worth the sacrifices? Once one or both partners no longer wish to be in the relationship then there is no point in making sacrifices for something they don't really want.

Just a refinement on what Kit has said here. You also need to take into account obligations that you've accepted by being in the relationship. The most obvious obligation is if children are involved, but there can also be financial obligations (such as one person in the relationship who has been financially supporting the other so they can dream their dream). In that case, it is not just the benefits but also the obligations that need to be weighted up.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Graeme

[JasonDiggy]

Who says relationships are supposed to last forever? In one way or another, they have to end, whether by break-up or death. What if we're meant to learn and experience what we do with another person, and that's that? A boss of mine was almost suicidal because his wife of 25 years was divorcing him. He saw the marriage as a failure because they were divorcing. But I asked him how those 25 years were together, and he said they were amazing save for the last 3. Well, isn't that a success? 22 years of a great relationship is often more than most people will have, and I don't mean the length but the quality. Like everything in this world (and here's where it gets depressing), everything has an expiry date. Why not relationships? Look at what was good and not what was lost.

[kitten]

Just a refinement on what Kit has said here. You also need to take into account obligations that you've accepted by being in the relationship. The most obvious obligation is if children are involved, but there can also be financial obligations (such as one person in the relationship who has been financially supporting the other so they can dream their dream). In that case, it is not just the benefits but also the obligations that need to be weighted up.

 

Yes, I agree. (I mentioned children as possible beneficiaries of a relationship.)

 

However, it is possible to maintain many of those obligations without maintaining an unwanted relationship. Financial obligations can be covered by 'divorce settlements'. With good will there is no need for such settlement to apply just to married couples. Without good will the relationship won't continue anyway.

 

The question of obligations to children is, of course, not just financial. Obviously having two parents living together in a loving relationship is ideal. However, from personal experience I believe that a child is better off with amicably divorced parents than being stuck in a 'home' full of parental fighting and bitter recriminations. It is even worse when one or both parents tell the children that they are staying in the relationship merely for the sake of those children. Then the children not only have an unhappy home but they also feel that the unhappiness is at least partly their fault.

 

Perhaps sometimes breaking up a relationship might actually be the best way to deal with the obligations.

 

Kit

[AFriendlyFace]

Looking through the above responses I get the impression that most people consider that it's a bad thing if relationships don't last forever (or at least for a very long time).

 

....

 

....

 

It is right that we should celebrate the good luck of people who are in such relationships, just as we celebrate their good luck in other things. However, we shouldn't assume there is something 'wrong' when people don't have such good luck. I'm happy if my friend wins the lottery, but I don't think there is any 'fault' if he doesn't, and if his relationship doesn't work out, I won't say that his relationship 'failed' or suggest that he could have saved it if only he'd worked harder, persevered more, or been more patient.

 

Kit

 

Well said, Kit! I agreed with almost all of that!

 

The only exception being that if people waited until they were older to have relationships they would have more reasonable expectations of them. I think that's partly true, but at the same time, I think that one of the things that makes people more realistic as they get older is the fact that they've had those learning experiences. To me it's sort of like the argument for raising the driving or drinking age. Yes, people are often more responsible once they're older, but at the same time experience plays a big role and one will always be inexperienced when they first start something regardless of age.

 

Who says relationships are supposed to last forever? In one way or another, they have to end, whether by break-up or death. What if we're meant to learn and experience what we do with another person, and that's that? A boss of mine was almost suicidal because his wife of 25 years was divorcing him. He saw the marriage as a failure because they were divorcing. But I asked him how those 25 years were together, and he said they were amazing save for the last 3. Well, isn't that a success? 22 years of a great relationship is often more than most people will have, and I don't mean the length but the quality. Like everything in this world (and here's where it gets depressing), everything has an expiry date. Why not relationships? Look at what was good and not what was lost.

 

That's exactly the point I had in mind!

 

The question of obligations to children is, of course, not just financial. Obviously having two parents living together in a loving relationship is ideal. However, from personal experience I believe that a child is better off with amicably divorced parents than being stuck in a 'home' full of parental fighting and bitter recriminations. It is even worse when one or both parents tell the children that they are staying in the relationship merely for the sake of those children. Then the children not only have an unhappy home but they also feel that the unhappiness is at least partly their fault.

 

I quite agree with this as well!