What if your need isnt the same, if it isnt with your partner

[dwixi]

Say your partner didn't want to help you with a need but was happy for you to get it somewhere. But the problem is, you don't want to fulfill it with anyone else because that would make it a different thing altogether, and you want to do it with them and that specifically is your need.

[Angela]

I think you may find it helpful to examine the concept of "need" (as opposed to preference).

A really great method for doing that is through The Work of Byron Katie. The process is free, and there are even coaches available who will talk you through it.

[Alexjstrandberg]

what's the situation?

[dwixi]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think you may find it helpful to examine the concept of "need" (as opposed to preference).

A really great method for doing that is through The Work of Byron Katie. The process is free, and there are even coaches available who will talk you through it.

...?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dwixi

...?

If your "need" can only be fulfilled with or by a specific person (other than yourself, of course ), then you might want to ask yourself, "Is this truly a need? What will happen if it's not fulfilled? Will I die? Will they take away my children? Will the world stop turning on its axis?"

Depending on the answers you get, you might find that what you call a need that can only be fulfilled by a specific person is actually a strong preference, and that your deep-down heart's desire is available to you in abundance, regardless of what this specific person is up to.

I just think it's worth looking at, don't you?

[dwixi]

Originally Posted by Angela

If your "need" can only be fulfilled with or by a specific person (other than yourself, of course ), then you might want to ask yourself, "Is this truly a need? What will happen if it's not fulfilled? Will I die? Will they take away my children? Will the world stop turning on its axis?"

Depending on the answers you get, you might find that what you call a need that can only be fulfilled by a specific person is actually a strong preference, and that your deep-down heart's desire is available to you in abundance, regardless of what this specific person is up to.

I just think it's worth looking at, don't you?

well, unless you want children theres no "need" for sex well.. not even the children bit really anymore.
Also.. you don't "need" art but its still something that makes you happy.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dwixi

well, unless you want children theres no "need" for sex well.. not even the children bit really anymore.
Also.. you don't "need" art but its still something that makes you happy.

Exactly! If your perspective is that you "need" sex or art to be happy, then if you are not having sex or art, you're not happy. If you view sex and art as preferences, then you are free to be happy even if sex or art are not currently present. (And all we have is the present.)

That's just like what you were talking about in your OP. If there is some quality or condition that you consider one certain person, and only that one person, must provide in order for you to be completely satisfied and fulfilled, then if that person does not provide it for you -- even if she happily encourages you to get it elsewhere -- then you are not free to be completely satisfied and fulfilled. Guess who holds the key to that freedom?

One way of saying it is that you are blackmailing that person! Yes, blackmailing. It's very much like someone who says, "I'll commit suicide if you stop loving me!" ...except the consequences are slightly less dire. (Someone whose satisfaction and fulfillment is completely dependent on the feelings, thoughts, or actions others -- or on any external circumstances, for that matter -- is half-dead anyway.)

It's a terribly overwhelming responsibility to ask someone to take on, don't you think -- to be responsible for YOUR happiness, satisfaction and fulfillment? Sure, your partner wants you to be satisfied and fulfilled and will support you all she can in that, but ultimately, the responsibility for your way of being is 100% yours.

But I know it can FEEL like your satisfaction, fulfillment and happiness depends on the feelings, thoughts, or actions of one person. That's why I recommend Byron Katie's The Work -- it's a great resource for helping to set yourself free to feel wonderful regardless of external circumstance.

Wouldn't that be a great gift to give your partner? To set yourself free to feel wonderful regardless of what she does? I can't think of a better gift -- except maybe the one that goes along with it -- setting HER free of the responsibility for your happiness, satisfaction and fulfillment.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

Exactly! If your perspective is that you "need" sex or art to be happy, then if you are not having sex or art, you're not happy. If you view sex and art as preferences, then you are free to be happy even if sex or art are not currently present. (And all we have is the present.)

This reminds me of something I read long ago. It said:

1. Lower beings use needs.
2. Higher beings use preferences.
3. The highest use nothing.

Personally, I hover around #2. Being #3 sounds odd (and almost boring) to me, but maybe one day it wouldn't. Being #1 sounds unhappy.

[Angela]

Well, I don't think in terms of "higher" and "lower" so much as: what works well in being in love with my life?

To me, one feels like a judgement, which doesn't feel so good, and the other feels like evaluation, which is fun and productive for me.

[magi13]

make sure you and your partner are sexually compatible. it'll lessen the problems

[Daffy Duck]

I think I read the idea in Conservations with God series when I was 13 or so. I think that's the book it came from. Can't remember which one of them.

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, I don't think in terms of "higher" and "lower"

I do think it terms of higher and lower in certain cases. For example, it is clear to me that most people want to be happy. They want to feel what we call happiness. And it is clear that there are certain thoughts and actions that do not promote the feeling of happiness. So since most of us have this common goal, I can say that some things are "lower" because they don't help achieve the goal.

As an example, if I go outside and punch some random kid in the face, I would definitely consider this to be a "low" act.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I do think it terms of higher and lower in certain cases....
As an example, if I go outside and punch some random kid in the face, I would definitely consider this to be a "low" act.

Yes, I get what you're saying. I'm saying: it feels better to me to practice letting go of the judgement (high/low, good/bad), because it tends to allow a freer flow of understanding and love.

Evaluation feels better to me because it gives me more access to power than does judgement. It also gives me more agility in "thin-slicing" my moment so that I'm more likely to be safe, able to avoid potential face-punchers, and ideally to help a potential f-p feel a little better and make a choice that feels a little better to HIM.

Same thing with the OP question: if I judge the person who is not giving me what I "need" then I'm less free to evaluate why she's not giving it to me, and if it's even really true that I "need" it from her, and to be able to make a difference in feeling good for her and for myself.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you *shouldn't* judge or assign "high/low" "good/bad" ratings. I'm simply talking about works well for me.

[Cristal Lilly]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I think I read the idea in Conservations with God series when I was 13 or so.

*giggles*
or was that really supposed to say conservations instead of conversations?

I have nothing smart to say here, but I don't feel bad cause angela seems to be handling it beautifully so my strong preference for the person in trouble to be helped is fulfilled

[dwixi]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

This reminds me of something I read long ago. It said:

1. Lower beings use needs.
2. Higher beings use preferences.
3. The highest use nothing.

Personally, I hover around #2. Being #3 sounds odd (and almost boring) to me, but maybe one day it wouldn't. Being #1 sounds unhappy.

Wow I really like.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Cristal Lilly

*giggles*
or was that really supposed to say conservations instead of conversations?

Oops. Yep, it was supposed to be conversations.