nataliekresen’s posterous

Stumbling through... 
Tags


Filed under

relationships

 
June 2, 2009

Relationships are scary. Eeeeeeeekkkkkkk!

 Relationships are like mirrors. srorrim ekil era spihsnoitaleR
 
I've heard this phrase before. In fact, I've heard it many times but I never quite got it. Like mirrors? How? You usually don't pick someone exactly like you or you're in for it. At least I would be, there's only so much crying, analyzing, and dancing to old Michael Jackson songs that I can handle.
 
But then I realized: mirrors reflect, they give back our own image, they force us to see our beauty and our flaws. 
 
Your partner is not your image, they are holding up the mirror, forcing you to look at  things you may not want to admit are there. 
 
When a partner does something you don't like, it makes you feel your needs and values. It brings you into direct relation with the vulnerable, soft parts that exists underneath your day to day mask.
 
I'd venture to say: It's really not about the other person at all
 
Romantic relationships are scary because they force us to deal with parts of ourselves that are usually not triggered. Those needy parts we are scared will be too much for someone to accept and love.
 
So, often we run away, avoid the conflict, back off from deep intimacy because we don't want to see ourselves that clearly, don't want to admit our giant fear of being rejected for who we truly are, underneath it all. 
  
We construct grand stories to defend our points, he did this, he said that, blah blah blah. This validates our behavior in the relationship and allows us to avoid looking deeply at ourselves. And because we are creatures of support, we tell these stories to everyone: friends, family members, therapists, co-workers, hairdressers, dentists, so that our 'case' can get validated over and over again.
 
A good example of this form of validation is the typical 'woe is me' story:
 
I was having drinks with a dear friend a few months ago, telling him about my latest heart break.
 
Me (looking down, thumping the curve of my wine glass): I knew there was something wrong. I knew it. But I just didn't want to ask. I didn't want to know. So, I just kept pretending I was okay with everything until it got to a point where it was too upsetting for me.
 
My friend (sitting upright, chest facing me, head turned slightly): Yeah, so in a way you were as much to blame for the lying and the deceit because you made a silent agreement that you were going to accept that something wasn't right and not say anything. You agreed to the facade, to pretend that whatever it was, wasn't there.
 
That was the first time someone broke my sob story, stopped petting me on the head and voiced my part in the situation, my footsteps in the dysfunctional dance. 
 
Romantic relationships can serve as a catalyst for self growth and realization. When we own our needs and voice our truths we live closer to the core of who we really are. And, shockingly enough, we are loved even more for the parts we try to keep hidden. Roots are nurtured and cared for far more than leaves.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   relationships  

Comments [6]

November 12, 2008

A tree is not a tree is not a...

We are the stories we tell ourselves.
 
We're fighters or lovers, artists or buisnessmen, victims or aggressors, lucky or cursed.
 
It's true, we define ourselves to ourselves and define others in direct relation to who we think we are. Example: 
 
He's so mean, I can't believe I let him hurt my feelings again. 
The judgment of who he is (mean) is in direct relation to who she thinks she is (kind). He is reduced to what works for her (mean aggressor) so she can continue to validate the story she's been telling herself (she's a sensitive victim).
 
Acknowledging that we label ourselves and others, creates an opening like a camera's aperture, in which to glimpse a world outside of ourselves. It is through this opening that true communication and human connection can take place. Otherwise, our experiences with others are nothing more than a casting call in the play we write for ourselves. People become characters in our fiction, heroines or villains.
 
Step outside yourself and evaluate the world. For a tree is not a tree is not a tree, but each an individually magnificent rooted being. And another person, never just a series of descriptive words...

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   personal reflection   relationships  

Comments [1]

October 17, 2008

Ah, to laugh

http://www.chilloutzone.de/files/08101004.html

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   humor   relationships  

Comments [1]

September 12, 2008

Auto-Talk.

 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   relationships  

Comments [2]

September 4, 2008

Math, Romance and Culinary Invitations...

Couples.   
Oh man, couples. What comes to mind for me are two basic equations that exist in the traditional heterosexual dating world, and they are: 

 
1. Man + Woman = Love + Break-up = Ex (Start Again) 
2. Man + Woman = Love - Break-up = Life Partner (Theory Completed)

 
We have all had to tackle these at some point, and some of us (ah hem) are still doing our worksheets like good little pupils. 
 
While these equations seem simple, Man + Woman = Love is one of the hardest theories/practices to truly understand. For love and relationships can dictate whether we will be happy or miserable, fulfilled or empty while experiencing them. They have a profound impact on our lives if we are in one because we are either a.) struggling or b.)  floating through. 
 
Love.  A topic my mind always returns to, mediates on, drives itself nuts over. I recently saw the new Woody Allen movie, Vicky Christina Barcelona which, briefly told, is an excellent story about two American girls who live in Barcelona for a summer and get intangled in their own definitions of love and commitment via a romantic, sensual painter who serves as the catalyst. Each girl is searching for this sort of 'everlasting' or 'true' love that surpasses all other, a real lifetime partnership. But Vicky and Christina, while looking for a very similar intensity of love, believe they'll find it in very, very different people and ways.  This got me thinking...yes, we do all love in drastically different yet shocking similar ways...
 
Can we know ahead of time what it is we want? Can we map it out, outline it with bullet points, or are we just thrown into the jungle, crawling through the darkness on our hands & knees? Is it possible to fall in love after a few days, a few weeks, a few months? If so, it it just as possible to fall out of love in this time?
 
The Fallacy of: Love + Time = Intensity of Love
 
For many years I thought the true basis of a genuine 'love' relationship was in direct relation to time. The longer two people were together the more mighty the bond and the longer it took to recover if there was a break-up. So and So's been together for ten years, they must really have something great. Even I, when recounting my own romantic past have only spoke of my two long term relationships, each of which surpassed the year/s mark. But why? Were these relationships somehow better and more compatible for me than the numerous others that only lasted a few weeks or months before puttering out?
 
I used to think: yes, of course they were more meaningful/intense/loving/real than the brief ones and therefore I must use them to match all future relationships too. If I can make it with New Guy Y longer than Ex Guy Q, then I love Y more than I loved Q and if it ends with Y, I give myself permission to take an unreasonably longer time to get over it. 
 
I now think: this is a bunch of crap. Love can't be measured by time, it's ludicrous really. Love can't really be measured at all except by one's self; it can't even be measured by the partner because he/she's coming from their own place. And yet there's much bragging when two people have dated for awhile-- Oh, Gary and I have been together since we were 19. I feel really lucky. Lucky. In some cases, yes, it's a testament that they care and are committed and have worked through things together but on the other hand Gary could be distant and emotionally unavailable and his girlfriend could be scared to leave him because she doesn't want to be alone. 
 
We've all big egos when it comes to our stance on love. We judge others who don't feel the way that we do and we feel bad for those going down other relationship paths...couples feel bad for their single friends and single people feel bad for their friends who are in relationships. This all leads me to believe that none of us know what the heck we are doing. All this energy, all these thoughts, all this work, and at the end of it, do we know any more than we did when we started? Maybe a little, but not much.
 
Geeze, if we spent this much energy doing anything else, playing the violin, running, cooking...we'd certainly be masters. Perhaps that's the answer, perhaps our time is better spent cooking soufflé or playing in string quartets. Maybe it's time to start a giant cooking club and think about eggs, onions and olive oil instead of lust, disappointment and temptation. Yes, I think that might be a solid solution. Let's go crazy and create ten courses instead of three. Lets vent to our friends about the struggles of poaching fish, cry to our therapists about the tragedy of burning pot roast, write in our diaries about the stress in pounding steak tender. Let's group together and focus all energy on food. I've got a pan...even a few spatulas, and a measuring spoon...who's with me?
 
 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   love   relationships  

Comments [8]

August 11, 2008

Survey: to vomit or not to vomit?

I'd like to put forth a survey on behalf of my friend.
In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a date is defined as,

date: (noun) 1. a social engagement between two persons that often has a romantic character 2. the time at which an event occurs

Interesting that according to the dictionary a date is both a social engagement and/or a specific time that an event occurs. I take this to mean that a date is 1.) an experience and 2.) an event. How true it is...dates are never just experiences, no, they always,always contain some specific event in them that can either:
a.) make or
b.) break them. Take for instance my friend...

The story: My friend called me up for advice on a first date. She calls me her 'dating guru'. I have gone out on more dates than I'd like to admit. But 'guru'...I'm not so sure. I've had my fair share of never-should-have-gotten-dressed-for-this dates but that doesn't mean I've learned much from them. In any case, I told her to down a glass of wine beforehand so she'd be relaxed and cool as a cucumber when her date arrived. I also told her-- No more than three drinks while out.

Hmmmm...advice given is not always heeded and she, in the midst of her social engagement (which was going quite well by the way) downed one Jack & Coke too many until her eyes resembled little half moons. They laughed, they flirted, they walked to her door, they conversed, they kissed, and then...she burped/threw up and he left. Oops. There was her date within the date (her event within the experience). Please allow me to illustrate: 

They laughed, they flirted, they walked to her door,
they conversed, they kissed,                         (← experience/social engagement)

and then...

she burped/threw up                                       (← the make or break event)

Which brings me to my overarching question... Is it a deal breaker to throw-up on a first date? What if it's a little harmless throw-up burp that doesn't get on anybody? How can one small event within an entire night-long experience qualify as reason to not continue future social engagements with the person?

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   love   relationships  

Comments [6]