“I’m not sure how it all went bad, but it did,” Sandra told me, referring to her once-budding romance.
“It didn’t start with infatuation. We’ve both been in gaga relationships before, but ours grew gradually, so it felt steady and solid. Then, it started getting uncomfortable,” she explained.
Gradually, Sandra’s beau became more judgmental and assertive, until she began feeling “handled,” as she put it. His increasingly frequent calls and texts felt intrusive, as if she was under scrutiny. What’s more, his comments about her appearance and behavior grew more critical, implying that he wanted her to change some things more to his liking.
“When I confronted him about it, he denied wanting to keep tabs on me and said he likes me just the way I am,” she told me. “And, it did get better for a while, but the check-ins and critical comments have crept back in.”
Sandra and her boyfriend found themselves poised at a key pivot point that arrives, one way or the other, in most, if not all romantic pairings. In the early stages, many courtships exist primarily in a “let it be” emotional atmosphere. Both parties simply relish their time together, enjoy the process of mutual discovery, and are content to accept each other as-is. However, more often than not, this “state of being” becomes infiltrated by a “state of having.” The predilection to possess, to have or even to control, can begin emerging, often subtly at first, only to become more pronounced as familiarity increases. If and when the state of having takes precedent over the acceptance and mutual admiration inherent in the state of being, the tone and nature of the relationship shifts, as Sandra sensed.
Stay on top of the news of the day
Subscribe to our free, daily e-newsletter to get Milwaukee's latest local news, restaurants, music, arts and entertainment and events delivered right to your inbox every weekday, plus a bonus Week in Review email on Saturdays.
“Should I be worried about this?” she asked.
“You already are,” I replied. “Your intuition is talking to you, and it’s usually wise to pay attention to what it has to say.”
“And what is the message?” she wondered.
At a minimum, Sandra was experiencing a caution light, a warning to slow down, keep her wits about her and contemplate what was transpiring with her beau. Many who are transitioning from a “being state” in their romantic pairing to an unsettling “having state” experience some manner of disquiet. Too often, however, they override their intuitive misgivings, telling themselves it’s no big deal or that it will work out somehow over time. After all, falling in love is sufficiently compelling that, once it happens, most of us are reticent to mess with it, at least at first. And, of course, those who harbor a compelling need for attachment and belonging experience the greatest risk in this regard. Many is the romantic partner who dismisses her or his misgivings in deference to a powerful need to love and be loved.
“Loving someone is more about being with them than having them,” I suggested to Sandra.
Sure, it’s all but impossible to be in a romantic relationship without experiencing some degree of having, of wanting to possess the other person in some way, shape or form. When extreme, this emerges as maniacal efforts to control the other person, with all the accompanying jealousy, intrusiveness, emotional abuse and, on occasion, even stalking and violence. However, outside of these severe instances, most couples exhibit these two states (being and having) in varying proportions. If there is relative balance between them, and if just being (“I accept you as-is”) takes priority over having and possessing (“I want you my way”), the relationship rarely suffers.
“You need to find out if having and managing you is more important to him than simply being with you,” I told Sandra.
While there is almost always an element of “mine” in any romantic pairing, when possessing becomes the norm, this lyric from Linda Ronstadt’s song “Love Is a Rose” proves true:
“Lose your love when you say the word mine.”
For more, visit philipchard.com.
