Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amdcad!decwrl!sun!sunny
From: sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: what is love?
Message-ID: <1919@sun.uucp>
Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 11:05:20 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.1919
Posted: Mon Jan  7 11:05:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 05:14:27 EST
References: <2139@nsc.UUCP>, <1911@sun.uucp> <383@hou2g.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 53

> Jerome Scriptunas writes:
> Sunny:
> You wrote:
> >	Love is doing what's best for the other person even if doing
> >so hurts you, or isn't the best thing for you.
> 
> Why do you say this?

I guess what I had in mind was something like this:  There may come a time in a
relationship when you realize that the two of you have outgrown your
relationship, and that the best thing you can do for the other person is to set
them free.  It is probably hardest of all to admit to yourself that it would be
best for the other person's interests for them to move on and find someone else
more able to meet their needs.  In many relationships there is mutual agreement
to not grow, to put "the relationship" above the growth of the individuals
involved.  To have a relationship, and yet still have each of the involved
individuals *remain* individuals, and to have the relationship continue to be
fulfilling despite the potential growth of the individuals in different 
directions, is the most  difficult of all, particularly when there is the
potential for the growth of the individuals apart from each other to result in
the obsolescence of the relationship.  Many are the times I've noted that I
*had* to grow through the lessons of previous relationships in order to be
ready for a new relationship which formed subsequently.  Had I not learned the
lessons, it would not have been possible to form the newer relationship, which
was more mature and healthier than the previous ones.

As one who believes that there must be room in a relationship for 2.0
individuals, and that those two should be equal partners, I've found that I've
continually had to take the risk that the growth of myself or of my partner
might lead us to find the relationship incapable of meeting our new needs, and
thus that we might have to change from SOship to "just friends", and move on to
new SOs.  Many have been the times when the death of a relationship led me to
want to die rather than to continue on, as if the relationship was essential to
my very life.  Yet, in each case, the lessons I've learned from those relations
have been essential to being ready to form a newer more rewarding and mature
relationship.  Once the mourning for the old relationship was over, I found
stronger and more rewarding new relations.  And it doesn't seem to matter which
of the two "initiates" a break-up, it hurts both parties to go through it.
Thus I have found that it takes incredible strength to be able to be
continually open to the possibility of the other person growing beyond what I
have to offer, and to allow that person the freedom to truly be an individual,
and to make that growth.  Yet, the rewards are worth it.

It is too easy to avoid the above mentioned risk, by defining a relationship
which has the security of permanence, at the cost of preventing the growth of
the involved individuals.  Thus you must put the other person's needs of
individuality above your interests in maintaining the relationship, in order
for both to have the freedom to be individuals.  It is a risk.  But the
alternative is to agree that, "I'll always love you {if you remain as your are,
if you remain as I want you}.
				Sunny
-- 
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny