You Already Know the Answer
Amy Johnson is a psychologist and life coach who answers questions about relationships. In a recent post, she identified the three most common themes in the letters she receives from people. The commentary is mine.
1. You already know the answer.
People regularly write asking for a fresh analysis of events, even though they already know what’s up. They hope to find another person who will tell them they are mistaken, that they are too involved to see clearly, and that there is a perfectly logical and rational interpretation of events that they haven’t even considered. But mostly they know ahead of time that that’s not going to happen.
2. You can end your misery by communicating.
Often we make ourselves sick with worry by over-analyzing ambiguous signals. We don’t understand the comment he made, but we didn’t ask him to clarify. We don’t know why that other woman seemed overly familiar with him, but we don’t want to appear jealous or possessive, so we don’t ask. We don’t want to jinx a relationship, or appear needy, so we go along, raising no objections even as we feel ourselves becoming frantic. Maybe that thing nagging at you means nothing. Maybe you imagined it. Or maybe it proves he doesn’t care about you at all. Either way, not discussing it is not going to make your life better. And the truth is probably not as bad as your worst fears.
3. This should be easy.
If a relationship feels difficult, this probably isn’t the right person for you. When it’s right, it will work. It will be obvious, and you’ll know it. Yes, relationships are hard work. But if you are trying to make it work with someone, and you find yourself wondering about their level of interest or commitment, you can assume it’s lower than yours.
Meredith Goldstein at The Boston Globe is another relationship expert who responds to readers in a column called Love Letters. Recently, a woman calling herself On the Fence wrote in with what I thought was an absolutely preposterous dilemma. Her letter follows. I’ve bolded the bits that made me feel crazed:
Q: My friend is setting up my boyfriend. I’ve been stewing over this issue for a few days now, but it’s getting to the point where I have to make a decision ASAP. I’m in a strange situation; let me explain.
A few months ago, my best friend came back home to visit with her boyfriend and one of her closest friends from school (let’s call him George). George and I hit it off immediately and soon began dating. We didn’t want to be in a long distance relationship, but that’s the way things turned out. To compromise, however, we have been in an open relationship. I have been to Los Angeles twice this summer to see him (both times on my own dollar), and before the summer, he had come to visit me several times because he spent a fair amount of time in New York. At the end of the summer we are breaking up because he is moving to Europe to go to graduate school, and we didn’t want to even attempt the strain of a long distance open relationship between continents. Of course we’ll continue to care for each other and talk, but not as much as we do now, in hopes that we can remain on good terms to keep the option of a future relationship open.
However, the distance is not the problem. The most recent time I was in Los Angeles, George was in the bathroom and received a text message. I told him, and he asked me to respond to it. While I was in his text messages, I happened to see that my best friend who had introduced us had texted him a day or two before, saying that she was excited about setting him up with her roommate when he visits her (since graduation, she has moved to Chicago, and George is going to visit her for a few days on his way to Europe). I then saw that George and the roommate (who he has never met) have been texting rather suggestively, and it seems clear that they are planning on hooking up while he is in Chicago. (My point here is that I was NOT snooping; seeing the texts was an accident.) At this point, I don’t know what to do. I don’t know why my best friend would try to set my boyfriend up with someone else, even if we are in an open relationship. I was under the assumption that we wouldn’t make an effort to hook up with other people, but if it happened, it would be OK.
The fact that they were planning this while I was visiting him makes me totally furious. However, if I talk to George about it, he will get angry and think I’m being jealous and annoying, and while jealousy is a small part of it, I mostly just feel marginalized that the two people I am closest to seem to be conspiring against me. In a perfect world, I would talk to my best friend and ask her why she would do this and not mention it to George, but she and George talk about everything together, and I’m sure she would tell him that I brought it up. Also, both of them are in pretty bad emotional places right now — my best friend just got dumped and George doesn’t want to go to Europe — and I don’t want to make them even more upset and angry.
What should I do? I’m breaking up with George, so practically this issue doesn’t matter, but in principle it does. My best friend shouldn’t try to set up my boyfriend with someone else, and my boyfriend shouldn’t be lining up someone to sleep with when he visits Chicago. I’m at a loss between doing what is easy (not saying anything) and doing what is right, but I’m afraid it might unnecessarily hurt my relationship with George.
Meredith Goldstein was inclined to give George the benefit of the doubt, maintaining that he might be a relationship prospect for the future, and focused mostly on the friendship between the two women. You can read her reply here. As far as I’m concerned, however, this is a classic case of self-delusion gone wild.
She already knows the answer.
How is an open relationship a compromise? If they don’t want a long-distance relationship, then what does making it open achieve? I don’t see any indication of commitment, which is what is implied by the word “relationship.” I wonder who’s getting what they want here.
What is the point of planning a breakup for some point in the future? If you already know it can’t last, then why wait? It just drags out the drama of the separation, and basically sucks for everyone concerned.
Mostly, what I can’t understand is how this woman believes she can find someone to tell her it’s all going to be OK. And that if she could fine someone to tell her what she hopes to hear, she would believe it for a single second. Because I believe she already knows the answer. She knows because she has spent endless hours wondering what exactly her open relationship with her boyfriend George means. She has ample evidence that he does not want to be committed to her in any way.
She could end her misery by communicating.
I call bullshit on the “seeing the texts by accident” claim. She had to have gone snooping through his phone to find two different sets of conversations.
George is clearly planning on hooking up in Chicago. It’s right there on his phone. Since she was “under the assumption” that they wouldn’t make an effort to hook up with other people, she has a problem. He is clearly making an effort to do just that, and she needs to say her piece immediately and ask about anything that feels confusing or contradictory.
Every aspect of her relationship with George is complicated and difficult.
She has so little self-assurance in this relationship, she worries that asking perfectly reasonable questions will make others upset and angry.
She wants to avoid taking any action that will “unnecessarily hurt her relationship with George,” even though the breakup is a foregone conclusion.
Bottom line lessons of this slightly tragic tale:
- If you are in an open relationship with someone, he is not a boyfriend.
- If you have to set an expiration date on a relationship, it means you don’t belong in one in the first place.
- If you’re snooping through texts, your relationship is built on shaky ground, and you know it.
- If you’re operating under an assumption, you are too scared to ask the real questions. You already know the answer.
- Keeping your mouth shut to avoid making others upset and angry will only make you upset and angry.
Don’t halfway it with someone like George. Swallow the bitter pill of disappointment and prepare yourself for the next relationship by reflecting and learning from your mistakes. The truth is, deserving better may require your becoming better.
Related posts:
Hmmm… I'm afraid I have to call you out on a couple of things. First, let me tell you what I think you got right. This woman has a serious problem with communication, and the person she most needs to be honest with is herself. She is deceiving herself by thinking she agreed to an open relationship. She didn't. She told George he could date other people, but she secretly wanted him not to.
You're also spot on about her snooping. Instead of communicating her true feelings, she was spying in order to get a leg up in what I'm sure has been an ongoing effort to manipulate circumstances to her favor.
Ok, a couple of corrections. I think you should be careful when talking about George not wanting to be committed *in any way.* Since George agreed to an open relationship, we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt here. An open relationship *is* a form of commitment. It's saying, “I'm committed to having you on the roster.” Maybe it's not the commitment she wanted, but it is a commitment for the present and future.
Second, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong that someone in an open relationship cannot be a boyfriend. There are a lot of open relationships in the world, and some of them have been going on for a long time. There are committed couples who view each other as partners, but casually date other people. There are also polyamorous partnerships. I personally know a threesome — a man and two women who live together, and have lived together as sexual partners for several years.
These kinds of relationships are not for most people, but by casting a blanket over anything that isn't a committed monogamous relationship, you're ignoring a small but legitimate segment of the population who simply don't view monogamy as an essential part of long term commitment. On The Fence opened this avenue, so we have to play by the rules of the road.
By analyzing this woman's situation in black and white, you've omitted a very real possibility. Perhaps George believes he's in an open relationship. He may very well think that On The Fence is willing to date other people and let him date other people. Of course, now that they've agreed to break up in the future, he should know better, but let's be honest. We already know OTF doesn't say what she really wants. It's difficult to say for certain what George does or doesn't think is going on. Since he very casually let her see his phone when he knew there was hookup info in there, it seems to me that he might well believe what he is doing is fine. If that's the case, where's the fault? Not on George if he believes that's what he agreed to.
I suspect that what's really going on is OTF is trying to pull a magic rabbit out of her hat, and is sleeping with George until the bitter end in the hopes for a miracle. Kind of pathetic, if you ask me. I just hope George always wears a condom. He surely doesn't want to knock her up in the last couple of months.
Hey, hamby, I knew this was exactly where I would get pushback. It's just so hip to be polyamorous these days. My personal philosophy is best reflected by Mrs. Patrick Campbell's famous remark in 1910 (she was referring to two gay men at the time):
“Does it really matter what these affectionate people do, so long as they don't do it on the street and frighten the horses?”
What I don't understand is the need people feel to justify, or even proselytize their lifestyle choice. Your choosing the word “legitimate” to describe non-monogamists is an unnecessary value judgment, in my view.
I've researched polyamory in some depth, and have read at least a dozen personal accounts by individuals who have chosen it. Steve Pavlina, a very successful blogger who writes about personal development, wrote at length a while back about his decision to become polyamorous after many years of marriage to one woman. I have to say that his account, as well as most of the other accounts I have read, gave off a distinct whiff of: man wants more sexual partners, woman will lose man if she doesn't agree. While I have seen exceptions, I believe the desire for multiple sexual partners is heavily weighted towards the male. I suspect that most triads are one man, two women, as in the case of the threesome you know. As you say, the number of polyamorists is still small, though growing. There is very little real research available on how well these relationships work over time.
I do know that advocates for gay marriage are extremely concerned that polyamorists will actively pursue the right to marry in groups. Such an effort lends credence to the “slippery slope” argument that gay marriage opponents love to use, and gay activists worry about the delegitimization of their own cause.
And by the way, I have also read accounts of children in polyamorous families finding the arrangements confusing to say the least. They tend to seek frequent reassurance that their biological father loves their biological mother more than his other sexual partners. In the examples I learned of, this reassurance was provided, although not necessarily truthfully. While I don't believe these kinds of living arrangements are any of the government's business, I do suspect that they may not provide relationship models that will serve those children well as they mature.
With respect to this particular situation, I agree that George is not to blame. I don't judge him. It does sound like he is keeping his part of the bargain. The responsibility for OTF's misery rests squarely on her own shoulders. She obviously doesn't really want an open relationship, wishes he was more committed to her, and feels jealous that he may hook up with someone else. It seems to me that she and George want very, very different things from a partner, at least right now. She is delusional when she worries about hurting their relationship by talking to George, when that relationship already has a scheduled expiration date.
I hear you on the frustration with delusional people. It has taken me awhile, but I have come to the conclusion that these people are either in utter terror of being alone or have a martyr complex.
This thread is a very good example of this:
http://www.enotalone.com/forum/showthread.php?t...
Here is another one that gets me irked:
http://www.girlsaskguys.com/Relationships-Quest...
What is great about the first one is the author of the post is actually arguing with people in defense of the person who has betrayed him. In fact he has made numerous posts related to this issue where everyone tells him he needs to sever all ties with this woman, but he keeps making new posts hoping someone will tell him what he wants to hear. I am serious, do a 'find all posts' search on him and almost every one is him fishing for acceptance.
Is it strange that people like this actually make me angrier than the cheaters?
Hell, what can you say to this?
http://www.enotalone.com/forum/showthread.php?t...
Augh! I really need to stay away from these sites. I like to try an help out people who find themselves in rough spots so I visit them alot, but I go a little nuts every time I see someone acting in such a self-destructive, self-loathing way. How do you keep the frustration from reading these things without blowing a gasket, as I know you have to encounter these situations alot?
Yeah, those are pretty awful discussions. One good thing about forums is that the advice people give is really direct. So stupid, pathetic confessions like those get torn apart pretty well, and everyone tells the victim to get a life. Other than that, what're you gonna do? People are stupid, and they're really, really stupid when it comes to love and sex.
But, Screwtape, come on, don't be going to these sites so much! First of all, you find it frustrating, which is understandable. Secondly, the odds of your having a real, measurable effect on any of these knuckleheads are about 1 in a million. Thirdly, go out and live your life, and get into your own tough situations. Then you can go to the forums and ASK for advice.
As far as justifying the lifestyle choice, what justification does there need to be other than “This is what I want”? You're a big proponent of going after what you want, but recognizing the consequences of what you're likely to get.
Proselytizing? I dunno. I think that's a bit of a stretch, when all someone has done is stood up in the middle of the room and said, “Hey… there are other options.”
Personally, I wouldn't advise most people in America to attempt polyamory. I've known a few people in my life who can figure their own shit out. Sometimes, they can figure their own shit out AND someone else's. When you add a third person to the mix, there are now four relationships to figure out. (No, math people, I didn't screw up. 123, 12, 13, and 23. There are repeats: 21, 31, and 32 are the same two people.)
Forgive me for perhaps being a little touchy about this, but I'm not a big fan of excluding the fringe because it's the fringe. That's the same logic that makes gay-bashing ok. I understand why gays would not be all that comfortable getting lumped in with poly's. If there's a group that's thrown under the bus more than gays, that might be the group. But when an oppressed group excludes another oppressed group for political expediency… is that right?
Susan, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you're so matter-of-fact about so many issues, I hate to see you ignore poly because it's sometimes problematic. Have you ever advised someone that long distance monogamous relationships are about as difficult as wet toilet paper origami, but if it's what they really want, they have every right to try it?
Human relationships are hard. Poly relationships are certainly harder in some ways than monogamous relationships, but I wonder… how many problems are caused by cheating in mono relationships? If poly reduces such problems, even a little, wouldn't you say that's an advantage? Again, my point is not to advocate it. I think it's a bad idea for most people. Certainly, most people like the letter writer in this article aren't prepared to be in a relationship with ONE person, much less more. I would say that at the very least, poly is something better suited to people who have been around the block a few times, and aren't in the middle of figuring out kids, mortgages, etc. I do know that statistically, most swingers are 35+ years old. That's pretty well established. There's inconclusive evidence that most poly relationships are that way, too, but it's difficult to know for sure since most people in poly relationships are afraid to tell anyone.
Isn't there something wrong with that? We can't gather data because people are afraid of being ostracized? To be honest, the only thing you said in your post that really puts me off is that you want poly people to stay in the closet. Really? You're too open-minded for that. Shame. And you even quoted a homophobe. Really. Shame on you.
Finally (and then I promise I'll go back to being nice and agreeing with you a lot), it's pretty obvious why most poly relationships involve men who want multiple women, but it's also not different from any other principle of human mating. There's an inherent bias in singling out women as “Normal and Correct” for wanting one mate and men as “Sketchy and Wrong” for wanting more. I'm not saying it's not an understandable bias, but it is a bias. It's also not the hard fast rule. There are poly relationships with two men. After all… there are bisexual men and women who love them.
Susan, I'm having trouble finding the stat I want in my books, but I'll get it to you when I find it. I can get close by memory. There have been nearly 2000 cultures cataloged by anthropologists well enough to be able to speak authoritatively about mating practices. In close to 85% of them, polygamy was at least condoned in certain circumstances. All the biological evidence points to humans as mildly polygamous. If someone is in a situation where poly is an option and they're considering it, I find it hard to justify not giving them the pros and cons of all possible arrangements. That's what you do for everybody else.
Ack… forgot to mention. Children getting confused by poly arrangements appears to be linked to cultures where poly is not openly acknowledged. Funny, eh?
OK, first let me say that I appreciate your thoughtful comments, and the time you've spent considering the issue. Everything you've said is appropriate and fair. Let me clear up a couple of things, though.
First, who's the homophobe? Mrs. Patrick Campbell? I know nothing about her other than that she said this. Nor do I think this quote is homophobic. What it means to me is that as human beings we all need and deserve love in our lives. I support people finding love wherever and with whomever they can. It's nobody's business who I choose to sleep with or make a life with. And I respect everyone's right to make whatever choice is right for them. In fact, i would say it's imperative that we own our true natures and find fulfilling relationships wherever we can.
As such, it is not my wish for anyone to be in the closet, unless their proclivities arewrong or destructive, especially to children (NAMBLA comes to mind). Having said that, I do not want to feel ANY pressure to endorse your choice. Much of the material I've read by polyamorists goes to great lengths to persuade the reader that long-term monogamy in humans in unnatural, and that polyamory frees us to live a fuller, richer sexual and emotional life. That's what I mean by proselytizing.
Another factor is the promotion of polyamory by the media. I've written before about sex-positive feminism, which I believe is not, or should not be, political, and distracts us from issues much more important to much larger numbers of women, e.g. sex trafficking of children. Again, if BDSM is your thing, it's none of my business, and any tips from you on how to get off while being choked by your partner is TOO MUCH INFORMATION. Why do I need to read that in the mainstream media?
I agree with your claim that there is a prevalent bias against men for being more sexually
Jezebel (Gawker Media) says: “Maybe you can have it all. You just can't get it all from the same person.”
http://jezebel.com/356240/is-polyamory-not-such...
Huffington Post: Polyamory, The New Monogamy?
“If only our voting system could have a small percentage of the organization, rules, and clarity of these relationships!”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/belisa-vranich/po...
That's what I mean by proselytizing. These articles contain strong biases of their own.
I agree that there is a prevalent bias against men for wanting more sex with more partners than women do, on average. I'm guilty of falling into that trap all too often, implying guys are “sketchy and wrong.” Actually, having active male commenters on the site has really helped me to broaden my thinking on this issue, and I try to be aware of that bias, and to hold women accountable for their own happiness in relationships.
Finally, let me just say that I know that I can be bossy and authoritative. When I was a child my parents called me Lucy (of Peanuts fame). I am a big proponent of going after what you want, intelligently, as you say. When and if I step out of line, I know my readers will let me know. I try to write in a way that is positive and empowering, motivating people to take control of their relationships. I don't presume to tell people what (or who) they should want. The heart wants what it wants, right?
Last thing: I agree with you that much of what we believe is right for society has to do with cultural conditioning. This is probably a stupid example, but I'll confess that in watching Big Love, I can totally understand the choice those three wives are mamaking to be in a polygamous marriage. And I realize that had I been born in a different place to different parents, I could probably live quite happily in such an arrangement myself.
Yeah, I generally try to stay away from them these days. Occasionally I go to those sites to see if anyone has asked a question that is similar to some situation going on in my life. I figure why ask a question that has likely already been answered? Invariably I get drawn into some of the other discussions I find on the forum. When I come across a discussion like the ones I have linked above I just go a little nuts. I suppose it is because I just cannot comprehend their thinking. It is completely alien to me. In a way I guess I suddenly feel like I am in a Lovecraftian tale, where the protagonist has encontoured some alien horror that drives him temporarily mad.
Thanks, Susan.
First, I hope you realize that I offer criticism in the spirit of open dialog and everybody coming out of the exchange having benefited. In a way, I think my sensitivity to your quote on homosexuals (and by implication, polyamorists) keeping their love lives to themselves is an extension of the same idea. I need to make sure to tell you that I'm not mad or anything. I love your blog
You know that, I hope.
Let me tell you a little about my own life that I think will explain my perspective the best. As you know from reading my blog, I'm an atheist. We atheists are the largest minority in America that it's still socially acceptable and even desirable to discriminate against. (I won't defend that claim here… it's not what your blog is about, so just trust me for the moment. I live it.) Every day, I drive past huge billboards advertising for different churches. When I pass the churches, the marquees have messages about how I ought to believe in god so I don't go to hell. Street preachers give me tracts. There are entire TV networks devoted to spreading Christianity. Yet, when I express my atheism in any way in public, I'm asked to politely keep my opinion to myself. I'm told, “We don't mind if you're an atheist… not much, anyway, but would you please not expose me and my children to your sinful ways?”
Hypocrisy, anyone?
I don't want to have the floor to myself. I want open dialog. If churches can have huge billboards, why are there protests over atheists buying a bus sign? I don't ask for everyone to be like me — I ask for the chance to live my life openly without fear of losing my livelihood, friends and family for simply living the way I believe is right.
So… when someone says, “I don't mind if someone is polyamorous, or gay, or enjoys BDSM, or whatever… but they should just keep it to themselves,” I cringe. I know how it must feel for those groups to look at the majority and wonder why they have to hide their sexuality when straight monogamous couples hold hands, and kiss, and invite people to their homes, and share pictures all over facebook.
I get that some sites are actively promoting polyamory, and you don't feel like it's a good choice, so you don't want to promote it. The thing is, some people DO feel like it's a good choice, and they deserve their part of the floor in an open dialog, just like we atheists do. If polyamory leads to all sorts of horrible dysfunction and unhappiness, we can figure that out. Science is great for that sort of thing. But how can we find out if we keep forcing everyone into the corner where nobody can see them?
Furthermore, what if polyamory is really ok? What if the reason polyamory causes people problems in the U.S. is because of all the secrecy they have to keep up? How hard must it be to be madly in love and have a wonderful relationship, and not be able to tell anybody?
We won't know so long as we keep ostracizing them. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't expect anyone to advocate a position they don't agree with. I wouldn't want to have to advise all the readers of my blog to try being a Christian for a while. But if you flipped things around, where 70% of Americans were atheists, I would fight tooth and nail for the 30% minority's right to have billboards and websites and commercials to try to convince people of what they believe is right. I would never, ever, ever, ask them to hide the fact that they're Christian.
Anyway, sorry I lied when I said I'd go back to agreeing with you and being nice. I just think this is really important, so I wanted to give it one more shot to be clearly understood. This time, I really have had my whole say, and really am going to go back to fluffy teddy bear hambydammit.
Oh… and… love your blog
Awwww, hamby, thanks so much. I like you a whole lot too! I'm glad you explained your own frame of reference, I totally get it. In my own family we have lapsed Catholics (me), atheists, agnostics (my kids), converts to Judaism and Buddhism. So I'm used to lively discussions, all in the spirit of sharing and learning. And Boston is good that way, too. Sounds like you live in a less tolerant place. I would find that very, very difficult. Anyway, I really appreciate your input, you add a lot to the discussion.
Much like HD & Susan, I've always secretly resented poly, until I came to realize that it's truly all around us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamide
But Big Love? Is not really about polyamory any more so than it is ostensibly about the Fundamentalist Mormons who might practice Polygamy, but a writers conception of what that world would look like when translated into an appropriately attractive soap opera for commercial purposes.
And HD? Here are the famous 'Human Area Relations Files', so Have at it!
http://www.yale.edu/hraf/collections.htm
Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'
Much like HD & Susan, I've always secretly resented poly, until I came to realize that it's truly all around us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamide
But Big Love? Is not really about polyamory any more so than it is ostensibly about the Fundamentalist Mormons who might practice Polygamy, but a writers conception of what that world would look like when translated into an appropriately attractive soap opera for commercial purposes.
And HD? Here are the famous 'Human Area Relations Files', so Have at it!
http://www.yale.edu/hraf/collections.htm
Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'