THE "I" PRINCIPLE Cont'd
Welcome to part two of the “I” Principle blog. Please read part one if you haven’t. I won’t summarize it here. Let’s pick up where we left off, shall we? The previous blog ended on a curious note. How’s it possible that a person who loves their partner can’t meet that partner’s needs in a committed relationship? Simply put, they can’t give what they don’t have. To understand this, we must first understand the relationship’s promise. It promises that both occupants will do the work needed to meet each other needs. There’s no committed union without this promise. But often, so much is taken for granted when this promise is made, whether this promise is boldly stated and ratified or assumed. To understand this further, we must talk about Inclusive and Exclusive desires.
In my very first blog post, Why Do Solely Committed Relationships Fail, I covered what inclusive and exclusive desires are. An in part 1 of this blog, I discussed what desires are. I said desires are unfulfilled needs and wants. Inclusive desires are unfulfilled needs and wants that a person must be in a relationship to fulfill. These are desires they cannot fulfill by themselves. Exclusive desires are opposite. They’re unfulfilled needs and wants that we don’t need to be in a relationship to fulfill.
We get into committed relationships to get our inclusive desires met. This is the ultimate relationship promise. That is…that the relationship would do the work necessary to meet our inclusive desires and not hinder our exclusive desires. And as I often state, no one gets into the relationship for the other person. We all get into relationships for ourselves. And if we knew our partner couldn’t deliver on this promise and the pain it’d cause, we wouldn’t commit.
"We get into committed relationships to get our inclusive desires met. This is the ultimate relationship promise."
Inclusive desires are so important to us because they’re our energy source. Like the ox needed to graze the corn he treaded in part 1 of this blog, having our inclusive needs met gives us the energy to tread out our committed relationship’s corn. These desires make life worthwhile. And they not only make our sun shine, they make it shine bright. Getting these needs met is a real aphrodisiac. And the person that can meet them run the risk of having our dedication, fidelity, and a host of other honorable lifetime commitments.
Committed Relationships thrive on renewable energy. And when two people in a committed relationship naturally and dynamically meet each other’s inclusive needs or desires and naturally and dynamically support each other's exclusive needs or desires, this provides the renewable and cyclic energy the relationship needs to thrive and remain healthy. But, the reason many can’t do the work necessary to provide the energy their partner so desperately needs is because of what I call intra-mutual and inter-mutual conflict.
In committed relationships, inter-mutual conflict happens when one person's inclusive or exclusive desires dynamically and naturally conflicts with his or her partner's inclusive or exclusive desires. In other words, both partner’s inclusive and or exclusive desires are mutually exclusive. They’re like light and darkness; they can exist at the same time, but they can’t occupy the same space. And when inter-mutual conflict happens, it's because both partner's opposing inclusive or exclusive desires try and occupy the same space. And that space is their relationship. But, their relationship can’t house both simultaneously. And this is bad because the relationship meeting our inclusive needs and supporting our exclusive ones gives us the renewable energies we need to the relationship's work. And that work is putting up with and enduring our partner's shenanigans and idiosyncrasies?
"In committed relationships, inter-mutual conflict happens when one person's inclusive or exclusive desires dynamically and naturally conflicts with his or her partner's inclusive or exclusive desires ."
Then there’s intra-mutual conflict. This one happens when a person's inclusive desire is to meet their partner's inclusive desires or support that partner's exclusive desires but doing so also contradicts and conflicts with him or her meeting their own exclusive desires. This is different from inter-mutual conflict. Inter-mutual conflict happens when one person has no desire to meet his or her partner's inclusive desires or support his or her exclusive desires because doing so clashes with his or her own. But Intra-mutual conflict is where a person really wants to meet their partner’s desires because they don't clash with their their own. In other words, meeting that partner needs doesn't conflict with who he or she is. But they can't meet their partner's desire and their own simultaneously because to meet one is to automatically cancel the other.
For instance, a woman wants her man to give up his Saturday morning gym routine in favor of spending more time with her. Part of him really wants to because he values her feelings and always tries to make her happy anyway he can. But the other part of him loves playing basketball, and the two hours he spends there help keep him in shape. She argues that he has a home gym and could get the same kind of workout at home. And he knows this is true. But this is also the only time he gets to spend with his childhood best friend, and they've been doing this long before he met her. The rest of his week and time is spent at work and home with her. The fact that his desire to please her conflicts with his desire to play basketball is an intra-mutual conflict.
You may be thinking that every person in committed relationships struggle with this at times. Perhaps, most do. But there are some that are less inclined to struggle. And they are because they fell in love with their partner's easy going and accommodating demeanor but not his or her person. They fell in love with their demeanor because it so easily supports their addiction for getting their way. These are usually people who're so needy for their inclusive or exclusive desires to be met that when they find that person that barely resists and easily accommodates them, they quickly secure a relationship with him or her. For them it's practically a no brainer. And this person doesn't have to be the type they usually go for. And because their actions are rooted deep within their subconscious inclusive and exclusive desires, regardless of what those desires are, they're often unable to recognize and therefore classify their addictive behavior as selfish. This type of relationship normally forms when one person is dominant and the other is at least somewhat docile. The one who's on the docile spectrum often wants to please. And the one who's on the dominant spectrum often wants to be pleased. And it's even worse when the dominant only sees one way...their way. And usually their way is the quote unquote...right way.
In this style of relationship, the dominant is least likely to consider pleasing his or her partner when pleasing that partner contradicts the way he or she wishes to please him or her. Dominants are usually most willing to please their partner they way they see fit. And, when their partner wishes contradicts their way, they aren't keen on subscribing to their needs or wishes. So in the basketball example, if this man was this dominant type, he wouldn't suffer from intra-mutual conflict. He'd more likely suffer from inter-mutual conflict. However, from a renewable energy production outlook, both are about as equally disabling.
So, intra-mutual conflict happens when one partner’s own desires conflict. And it happens when one of their own inclusive desires is to please his or her partner but doing so contradicts satisfying his or her own exclusive desires. He or she must choose one over the other. And no matter which he or she chooses, he or she still loses. If he or she chooses their partner’s desires over their own, their partner gains energy, but he or she only makes partial to no energy gains. The partial energy gains comes from him or her satisfying his or her partner’s desires, which satisfies their own need to please their partner. But those gains could be ultimately wiped out by their inability to satisfy their own desires. And although pleasing his or her partner satisfies his or her own need to satisfy their partner, the fact that their own desire to satisfy his or herself own needs or desires goes lacking, which causes an energy problem for him or her. And if they choose their own instead, intra-mutually, it's like the old cliche of robbing Peter to Pay Paul. And to add insult to injury, their partner’s energy stores aren’t replenished and the relationship suffers even more.
In conclusion, the "I" principle sheds light on why committed relationships fail due to a lack of renewable energy. It further exposes why we must first honor our own energy needs before we can do the relationship's work that provides our partner with their energy needs. And it shows how our own needs being met first is a human nature dynamic that we must obey. It's similar to the pre-flight preparation briefing airline stewardesses give to passengers where mothers are encouraged to put on their own oxygen mask first before putting on their children's. They realize that if mothers lose oxygen, they won't have the energy needed to assist their children and both could be in peril. Often committed relationships suffer because one or both individuals in the relationship can't get their needs met. Subsequently, the work needed to sustain the relationship severely loses steam and finally the relationship crashes and burn.
As always, if you’ve enjoyed this blog series, please share it with others. And if you haven’t, please consider subscribing to receive the latest updates about future books, podcasts, and materials. I won’t sell your information. I value your patronage too much to do that. And always remember, committed relationships often cost more than their price tag!