Cornelis Zandbergen has said some sensible things in his answer and that also illustrated nicely and Bibles.
May I put my personal and light-autism-colored vision next to it?Well, because Cornelis invited me to do so. For which thanks.
I’m not good at relationships.I have not even recognized them as an independent entity for a long time. I still have doubts about it. In My experience There is only me, with my needs, sturdities and aversions, and the other with his (or her). This almost never fits seamlessly. What I want, that other often does not want, or at other times than I want it. Or we both want to be the same, incompatible, as determine where the holiday is spent or the boss. As the other has more to offer from what I want, I am willing to pay a higher price in the form of handing over autonomy and unpleasantly invested time and energy.
Infatuation and scorching lust I leave aside, because Plato had already established two and a half millenium earlier that you then act as if you were possessed by a demon.
There are important benefits associated with doing things together.You save on household time, because two meals are buying, preparing and cleaning up the mess costs barely more time than one. Two single households are much more expensive than a double household. Care for large and small diseases is much better arranged. Two know more than one ‘ there is safety in numbers ‘ (Is there a good sounding Dutch equivalent for that?). A covenant of two people is against a lot of file and depressions among singles are more. Moreover, the whole society is focused on two-relations. Much less on individuals and not at all on three-or more relationships.
All that you get for free with your relationship if you are willing to pay the price.For some, that price is very low. They find the presence of another with his air, sounds and mess just as pleasant. Those people love dogs. I don’t, just give me a cat. Who does his own thing, stinks herself not, and is also nice soft and warm. In short, much less noise, smell and clutter in the house.
I also want noise (I call ‘ My Music ‘), stench (I love the air of boswellia and freshly baked bread) and especially junk, but that’s what I call my stuff and my collection.
In short, I see a relationship not so much as an entity in which you can invest, but rather as a way in which I give my life together with a different form, a constant giving and taking.As you are better accustomed to each other, it is almost automatic. You know which button you have to press to achieve a certain result and the other one knows that too. In this sense, you could see an initial period as an investment.
That all of the man who completes this year after 25 years of marriages as an extraordinary civil servant is going to say goodbye as such.
I am quite faithful and I do not like the autist of change, and therefore I have a relationship with the same dear man for 41 years.
Yes, maybe both.Time-Verironing has an effect on the relationship. We change with time. The relationship is what it is. If it requires a difficult investment, the relationship is difficult. If it goes naturally and automatically then the relationship is easy, free and happy. Most of the relationships might be somewhere in between.
Thank you well for your question!
Invited to reply.
I think we are only dealing with a semantic problem here:
“Natural” does not mean the same as “by itself”.
Both.You invest in a relationship. You can’t sit back and wait for a relationship to grow. You do the normal things in a relationship. As a result, the relationship grows in a natural way. And sometimes you do something extra to make a leap forward.