I'm not sure what's more sad, that you've never had that for yourself or that you don't even think it's possible.
I doubt either, or neither. Matter of fact, they have been pretty stable, 6 years (highschool and a few after), 20+ (with kids), and now going on 8 years.
It's always seemed to me that people who go into such things with reasonable expectations and modest goals do much better than that entire romantic deal, if only, because the end, life ain't all that romantic, and when the crap hits the fan, when things get hard, when its not working out perfect, all that romance does not hold up. In relationships romance is just the decoration, both people having their needs met is the bedrock. Because having your needs met is what gets you through all those hard times, because your needs are still there, even when it ain't going to be a kind day, or month, or even year, for romance.
And, I think it comes out just the opposite of what PL is saying, because I'm pretty sure that when she thinks of 'abuse' here, its the one who loves being abused by the one who is loved, and I think that the second position is a lot harder than the first - which is a huge subplot of VotD. Especially since VofD, written when it was (its a proto-feminist novel in a way) is about a women getting to that point, which traditionally had been a male role. Women love, men are loved in the traditional sense, and it takes a long time, lots of drugs, and a few hundred pages, for her to find out that she is worthy enough to be that person even though she is a woman - and since she can't make that work, its back to the Dolls.
Nor do I think that Miss Susan thought of that as an all one way deal, but on a need by need basis. One who give stability, one who receives it - who needs and craves it really, but had a hard time producing it on their own. One who gives protection, one who is protected. One who creates excitement, one who wants it. (Which is a prime reason that good girls like bad boys so much, and vice-versa.)
And most of those are pretty much one way streets too. Are you the protector, or the protected. You can't exactly rotate that. Largely because these qualities are attributes, not chores.
So, good relationships seem based not on a notion of equality, but more on the concept of a working partnership. And, though the intent is to divide things up more or less even throughout the project or whatever, the day to day, minute by minute stuff is hardly ever 'equal' at first glance. Nor should it be. In a bookstore, if one person is doing the books (business/bookkeeping) and the other is moving the books (both physically and as merch) it makes sense to have the person who is good with numbers do the first and the 'people person' do the second. Though, the two jobs are not equal. But you need both to get the common goal or need met. So its a marriage of convenience more than of equals. They both need each other, in the other being there their ability to achieve their goals are met, one can not really function for long with out the other in fact. What good is the accounting if you ain't selling? What good is selling if you don't make the money? What good is even trying to sell if no orders have been placed and there is nothing to sell?
I've always felt there are three different kinds of human lovetype relationships, Similar, Different, and Doomed. Some people are just so much like each other that the cuteness factor alone could kill you. Others, well, as the old saying goes - Opposites attract. And, in the long run, it seems to me that the opposites work the best. The similar deal it gets to hard to do what I said above, to complement each other, to give when the other needs, or to receive when the other is giving. Its far too easy for both to wind up in the same place, needing the same things, and being unable to produce them. I think its a lot harder for people who are natural opposites to get stuck like that.
I also think that in the dance of the opposites that each party is playing to their strengths most of the time. And, its harder to derail that in the other also because its part of their core strength. With people of a similar bent, it seems too easy for both to begin to focus on the weakness, and get mired in that.
Doomed, well, seems most are. Just the way it is. Some people push it to the limit. The entire "What? Your dating another actress/stripper? And that's going to work out different from the last 5 actresses/strippers you dated how?" (A common problem for people in my industry for some reason - and hard to say which is worse, dating actresses or dating strippers.) Most people with a trail of bad relationships behind them didn't make a ton of mistakes, rather they made the same mistake again, and again, and again.
So Emme is right, you have to ask yourself what you want, and what your willing to trade in order to get it. I know that entire 'dependence' deal has a bad vibe to it in the psychological community, but people in a relationship do come to depend on the other, and being depended upon is nice too, assuming your dependable.
And you pretty much have to quit looking and interact with lots of people instead, every love affair begins with a conversation.
Love is companionship, having friends in common, the same interests. Sex is the connotation you're placing on love, and let me tell you, young lady, that if and when it does exist, it dies very quickly after marriage. Anne, Valley of the Dolls, 1966
