Are You a Victim of Insane Relationships?

By Gary L. Garside

Here's what you'll find inside Are You a Victim of Insane Relationships?

Why newly found seemingly ideal relationships often quickly fall apart

Why those who look for love are those least likely to find it

Why you can intensely hate your partner but not be able to break up the relationship

How your partner can psychologically change your behavior--without you ever knowing it

How your partner can destroy your identity and ruin your lifestyle, forcing you into a position of a helpless--but willing--victim

How someone you don't like and are incompatible with can talk you into marriage

Also includes

14 pseudo loves which we often mistake for real love

Over 50 types of defenses which keep us from knowing our loved ones--and ourselves

Over 55 intimacy-thwarting games which plague our relationships

Over 101 common forms of anxiety which keep us from feeling secure

Over 750 glossary terms to help us understand our relationships

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Oct 4, 2022
• ISBN: 9781662451355

Book preview

cover.jpg

Are You a Victim of Insane Relationships?

Gary L. Garside

Copyright © 2022 Gary L. Garside

All rights reserved

First Edition

PAGE PUBLISHING

Conneaut Lake, PA

First originally published by Page Publishing 2022

ISBN 978-1-6624-5134-8 (pbk)

ISBN 978-1-6624-5135-5 (digital)

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Introduction to Insanity

Reasons for Insanity

Principles of Insanity

Barriers to Rational Relationships

Insane Communication

Adventures in Paradox Double-Binding Behavior

Game Plans Manipulative Tactics

Is It Pea Soup? Pea Soup: Principles and Problems

Pea Soup: Some Creatively Augmented Case Studies

Tug-of-Relationship Power Struggles Lovers Ultimately Face

Fun with Neurotics

Ego Defenses Made Easy Why You May Never Really Know Your Most Intimate Partner—Or Yourself!

Part 1

Part 2

Hi, Anxiety! Welcoming Anxiety into Our Relationships

Anxiety Types

The Insanity Continues

Glossary

About the Author

Introduction to Insanity

Romantic relationships are often perceived as being a potential source of great happiness. To maximize the potential for happiness, those who seek romantic relationships often search for the totally satisfying ideal relationship. But often, the relationships they find are hardly ideal. Instead of becoming a source of happiness, relationships become a source of discontentment, frustration, and emotional anguish.

At a relationship's inception, one is usually fooled by an illusion of potential happiness; the perception that needs and desires will become satisfied. But soon, it is found that the relationship is laden with emotionally burdensome conflicts. The two have incompatible values and lifestyles; they have different desires and goals, and they communicate poorly. But this is only the beginning. Soon, one is often subjected to extreme selfishness, combatted with defenses, maneuvered like a puppet by manipulative games, and riddled with anxiety. Escape is difficult should one become trapped by his or her own dependency and attachment. What one had hoped to attain was the ideal relationship; what one often winds up with is an insane relationship.

This book deals with the much insanity which occurs in relationships. It covers the many aspects of the typically insane relationship, from the point before two individuals become involved to what happens to each after the relationship has long been broken. Basically, Are You a Victim of Insane Relationships? is a philosophy and psychology of romantically oriented relationships, a construct which logically explains the insanity which we, as couples, together or apart, create.

The intent of this book is to make the reader aware of certain mechanics of relationships so that he or she has a greater chance of dealing successfully with the flood of insanity his or her relationships possess.

This book cannot cure all of a relationship's ills, of course; only the two people in the relationship can do that. But what this book can do is provide the reader with greater understanding of the various barriers which keep a relationship from becoming ideal. We will strive to transform insane relationships into something healthier and more satisfying. This work will point out the destructive aspects of relationships so that we might be better able to recognize these barriers in our own relationships, then give suggestions on how to successfully deal with them. Throughout this work, we will strive, through awareness and understanding, to erect a constructive, meaningful, enjoyable, truly satisfying sane relationship.

Reasons for Insanity

There are four major reasons as to why many people do not understand their partners, their relationships, or even themselves.

The first is fear. They may be afraid to admit to themselves, for example, that they are not really in love with their spouses and they are dominated in and insecure with their marriages. Such admissions are very painful and frightful. They may also fear that a partner (in any type of relationship) is unhappy and unfulfilled, and they are uneasy when faced with the idea of talking about it, fearing responsibility. Or they may be afraid to confront a partner with problems concerning the sexual aspect of the relationship, fearing that he or she will become insulted and angry. When one experiences this fear, one is often inclined to pretend that our problems will go away if we forget about them. They don't, of course. If anything, they proceed to worsen. There can also be a fear of exposing one's own true, non-defensive self. The accompanying emotional reactions can certainly be a conversation stopper. Quite often, avoidance of the unpleasant supersedes any quest for understanding.

Lack of knowledge is also a major contributor to one's lack of understanding. Limited information and awareness account for many problems remaining unsolved in a relationship. Being out of touch with the needs and desires of a partner allows for unhappiness to continue. I know something's wrong, but what? is a common, frantic question from one who lacks insight into a given problem and lacks communication from a partner. Underlying problems often remain undefined and unanswered.

Insufficient motivation is another barrier to understanding and problem-solving. The attitude that things are fine, why should I rock the boat? often allows the relationship to continue on hardly more than a superficial level.

There are those, however, who are genuinely interested in the internal workings of their relationships. A fear may be present, but it is overcome, believing that awareness and problem-solving is worth the risk of rocking the boat. There may be a lack of knowledge, but the motivation to learn overcomes such deficiencies. They are willing to think, to analyze, and, most importantly, to communicate with each other. They are not satisfied discussing solely weather, television, and work. They look beyond the basic aspects of love, marriage, and family. They analyze their relationships using such terms as insecurity, jealousy, and inadequacy. If they are very knowledgeable, they might even discuss dependency, anxiety, and defensiveness.

Now, however, they might reach the largest stumbling block of all: a language barrier. They wish to probe more deeply into themselves and into their relationships through more effective communication, but they are bound by the restrictions of their language.

A severe handicap in the science of relationships is that there is a crippling shortage of terminology. There are many principles which are unnamed. No wonder people have difficulty describing certain facets of relationships; there are few single words to describe them. The only way to efficiently describe concepts is to use the least amount of words possible while conveying the greatest amount of ideas possible. One word taking the place of many words eases the awkwardness of bulky descriptions. The creation of words for concepts which apply to relationships would thus promote more effective communication of combinations of ideas we may not otherwise have the ability to concisely and accurately describe.

Indeed, conciseness of language is extremely important in communication. Without it, communication becomes very complex. For example, a girl tells her friend over the phone, I'll catch a bus after school, go home, get my money, and meet you at the restaurant. This sentence expresses a message clearly. What if, however, our language did not contain the word bus or any synonym? This girl might then be forced to say, I'll catch one of the huge containers used to transport the masses after school… And what if there was no word school as well? She would then have to say, I'll catch one of the huge containers used to transport the masses after my day at the place where I learn… Then what if there were no words such as home, money, and restaurant? Replacing these simple words with descriptions would make for quite a bulky sentence: I'll catch one of the huge containers used to transport the masses after my day at the place where I learn, go to the place where I live with my parents, get my units of exchange, and meet you at the place where we will be served food and drink.

Awkward? Of course. But this isn't as bad as it could have been had we needed to express concepts instead of material things. How would one quickly describe calculus if that word did not exist? Or behavior modification? Or the theory of relativity? It would be impossible to convey all three concepts in one sentence if we did not have those words. A problem when talking about our relationships is that there are so many concepts which apply but which have no names. No wonder we often have trouble expressing how we feel and exactly what situation we are in; there are too few one-word descriptions. Describing our role in a relationship is often like trying to describe what calculus is. Not so easy.

In this work, many concepts applying to relationships are revealed and named. As this work progresses, additional concepts will be discussed, often through the use of previously unnamed concepts. Just as one cannot understand algebra without knowing simple multiplication, one cannot grasp the intricacies of relationships without mastering certain basic concepts.

So we begin.

Principles of Insanity

Optimism Versus Pessimism

One's attitude entering into a relationship situation can greatly affect its development. Following is the struggle of two contrasting individuals: the first we will call the optimist, one who believes that a relationship will or should answer all of his (or her) problems; the second we will call the pessimist, one who believes that a relationship will begin a new set of problems in his life.

The optimistic person hopes (or expects) that his relationship will be ideal and that his partner or potential partner will become just what I've always wanted. Initially, he tends to discount faults and problems in hopes that the ideal will develop. The pessimistic person, however, tends to look at relationships from a more realistic standpoint. He believes that no relationship and no partner can be ideal and he accepts that. He recognizes faults and problems.

The optimist, of course, is the most likely of the two to become disappointed. His (or her) goal—to be satisfied by an ideal partner and ideal relationship—is sure to remain unfulfilled. The faults and problems he previously ignored or discounted become overwhelming, and he is let down. He cannot handle incompatibility because he wants a relationship which is completely compatible. He becomes frustrated when not completely satisfied.

The pessimist, however, comes to grips with incompatibility; he expects it and is ready to deal with it even before the relationship begins. He does not expect that the relationship will satisfy him totally in every respect. He expects and accepts periods of dissatisfaction.

When one expects conformity from another person, one automatically puts the relationship—himself or herself and the partner—at a disadvantage. The optimist often tends to try to force compatibility so he (or she) will be satisfied. But expecting conformity puts quite a strain on the relationship and quite a strain on the partner who is faced with lack of acceptance and pressure to change. This is sort of a burden of expected compatibility. The partner feels ill at ease, often afraid of making a potentially relationship-ending mistake. Thus, the partner is likely to avoid sensitive topics, will play games, must use defenses, and employ other compatibility-feigning tactics in order to secure the relationship. Such conflict-avoiding behavior, of course, limits honesty and openness, thus making for a very insane relationship. But such is the plight of the expectation-laden optimist—one who bases his plans and goals on the fantasy of idealism.

This is quite unlike the pessimist, who builds solely upon reality. He (or she) realizes that conflicts are common and normal. He shows understanding and gives support for attitudes and behaviors though they might be different from his own. Because of his nonthreatening approach, his partner need not be reluctant to be honest and open; she does not fear that her words will pose a threat to the relationship. The optimist, with his need-satisfying, expectation-filled attitude, is likely to cause anxiety and defensiveness on the part of his partner, and he becomes frustrated when he is unsatisfied; the pessimist, however, does not have high expectations, keeping the relationship from becoming stressful. He does not become frustrated when conflicts arise; he is prepared to cope with them.

Be aware that being pessimistic does not at all have to entail gloominess and a lack of hope, but what it does entail is being grounded by reality and being ready to deal with adversity.

Indeed, one's attitude entering into a relationship greatly affects its development. We will call this the optimism/pessimism theory.

Logic Versus Emotion

One's logical quotient (rational thinking and reasoning) and emotional quotient (handling feelings) also have much impact on one's relationships. First of all, everyone has a sense of logic and everyone has a capacity to emote. Logic and emotion are often at war with each other. And whichever force has an edge at a particular time helps govern how we think and behave. One who is very secure with him or herself and secure within a relationship finds that emotions such as jealousy have little room to operate; one who is not secure with a relationship and has a high emotional stake in it finds that a partner's flirting causes an illogical, emotional uproar.

Some people, of course, experience various emotions more strongly than others. Some find it very easy to love, to hate, and to hurt. In this work, we will call emotions such as love positive emotions; emotions such as anger will be referred to as negative emotions. These negative emotions will be desired to be tactfully expressed or not expressed at all, depending on their origin. There are those who suggest that negative emotions always be expressed, but this is not always necessary or acceptable. As we will see later on in this work, anger often originates outside of our relationships but is displaced—expressed destructively inside our relationships. We often use a boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse as an outlet for our aggressions, then justify our hurting as honest communication. Not good.

In this work, any destructive use of emotions will be frowned upon. Negative responses such as anger and aggression should be replaced by awareness and understanding. Instead of the emotional response of How dare you think of seeing someone else (let's see, how can I get even?), we will strive for the logical response of I never realized you were so unfulfilled. What can we do to make our relationship strong again?

It is the emotional response, of course, which comes to us much easier. We often justify this response by placing the blame on the partner. We might say, You made me feel this way, It's your fault for my acting this way, and You deserve it. We often fail to take responsibility for our destructive emotions and behavior. Instead of saying It's your fault, we should be asking ourselves, What is it about myself which causes me to feel and act this way? Am I possessive? Am I jealous? Am I insecure and why? If we analyze ourselves in terms of the optimist, we may find that we are need laden and, in turn, expecting too much from the partner. If so, then we become frustrated because he (or she) is not going to extremes to satisfy us. We have failed to recognize that he has a life of his own and that his life does not revolve around our own as we might like. Thus, we have become angry—not because the partner has been intending to hurt us but because of our own attitudes. The partner may have entertained the thought of seeing another because we have placed many demands. Our own stress-producing expectations, here, are the root of the problem. If we were to expect less and need less, no one would have reason to become frustrated.

Throughout this work, we will again and again find that avoiding emotional upset will allow for rational, productive communication. We must learn that logic is problem-solving whereas negative emotions are problem compounding. We will call this the logical/emotional principle.

As this work unfolds, the reader will note many, many struggles between logic and emotion. In relationships, as it will be noted, logic seldom proves victorious. Generally, emotions rule relationships. We become infatuated though we may see that the potential relationship would be very illogical in terms of incompatibility; we become emotionally dependent on another, and our strong sense of need overwhelms our sense of ethics; we become attached to someone, and although we point out the logic of breaking up, we illogically remain unhappily bonded; we play social games for emotional satisfaction while we realize that our games are devious and unethical; we seek power or leverage over someone though we know we are hurting another; and we often act defensively, fearing that we will be looked down upon, though we know that openness would enhance our relationships.

There are times, though, when we do behave logically. But this logical behavior still does not guarantee a logical relationship. We may be reacting, for example, to an illusion which we perceive as reality, as explained in the upcoming sections concerning manipulative games, defensive behavior, and double binds. So even our seemingly logical responses to our relationship's environment can often turn out to be pretty insane.

In this work, we will strive for the rational relationship. In order to do this, we must become more aware of the insane intricacies of our relationships, of our partners, and, perhaps most difficult, of ourselves.

Extended Selfishness Theory

No matter how altruistically we might view ourselves, the bottom line of all relationships is that we want to make them satisfy our needs and desires. No one begins or continues a relationship solely for another's benefit; we always get some sort of emotional return. If we do not receive this return, we break the relationship.

Sometimes, our starting or continuing a relationship is not motivated by pleasurable aspects; we may be avoiding negative ones, such as guilt or the loneliness, which would occur if we were to break a relationship; we need to avoid guilt and loneliness.

We may claim unselfishness during a relationship because we seem to keep giving and are never receiving, and yes, it may be true that the person with whom we are involved does not actively give to us, but what we do receive are such abstracts as security and control. We may not be completely happy—in fact, we may be very unhappy—but we continue the relationship even if the only need being satisfied is, simply, the need to have a relationship, any relationship. We may be tolerant because the emotional stakes are high; without this person, we would be lonely and disheartened. And here, we will keep giving in order to keep secure a need-satisfying situation: having the relationship. Thus, even if what we are receiving is not making us happy, we are still receiving something which we need.

Here are some examples:

A guy we'll call Don needed much attention. He needed someone to look up to him. And he wanted to have a relationship with a beautiful girl. When a girl we'll call Karen came along, he found his needs satisfied. Karen needed security in a relationship. Don could give that to her. Thus, the bond between them became strong. They satisfied each other's needs.

Jim's ideal relationship, he felt, was one which was very sexually oriented. Any girl who would not satisfy this need, he believed, was not worth the time or trouble. Jim had been involved with Julie for four years. It was a sexually oriented relationship since its inception. But eventually, Julie grew tired of sex with him and avoided the matter. Their rapport deteriorated. Julie no longer satisfied Jim's need for sex. Jim would have thought, four years before, that he would have broken the relationship under such conditions, not that he didn't think about it at this time. But Jim found that he now had another need which Julie did satisfy: security. Jim was attached to Julie. He had a need to continue the relationship with her. So now, though the two are incompatible and Jim is very unhappy with her, he knows that he would be even unhappier without her. So it is within Jim's self-interest to continue the relationship. Thus, the bond between them remains intact.

Sam dated Sal for about a year. Sam never really liked Sal all that much, but Sal was very attracted to Sam. Sam's only motive for beginning the relationship was to rid his life of loneliness. He had wanted to be with someone on a romantic basis and no other girls had seemed available, so he had pursued Sal. During the relationship, things went reasonably well, but Sam's lack of feeling remained. One day, though, Sam met another girl whom he liked very much and who was interested in him. Thus, Sam's need for Sal diminished; he would no longer be lonely without her. The relationship did continue awhile longer, but only because Sam had a need to avoid the guilt which he would feel whenever the thought occurred that he would hurt Sal by breaking up. Sam's new girlfriend, however, gave him the necessary support and approval in order to alleviate the guilt; then, Sam had no need at all for Sal and he broke the relationship.

In any relationship, one's biggest regard is for one's self. We will always do what is within our realm of self-interest. Many times, during the course of a relationship, we concern ourselves with only that which takes care of our own needs. If we were to want affection, we would seek it; if we were to want attention, we would request it. Other times, however, it is within our realm of self-interest to take into account the needs of our respective partners. We obtain a feeling of happiness for pleasing the one with whom we are involved. Whenever we want this happiness, we will give of ourselves. In this sense, we are all selfish; we all seek to satisfy ourselves through relationships, either through the pleasure of taking or through the pleasure of giving or both.

It is here we can make a distinction between two types of self-oriented attitudes and behavior. We will refer to these types as positive selfishness and negative selfishness. Positive selfishness will indicate that it is within one's self-interest to please another; he (or she) (selfishly) gains pleasure through giving. He (selfishly) wants to give. When his partner is satisfied, he is satisfied. He has a need to see his partner happy. Negative selfishness will indicate that behavior is designed for the satisfaction of needs only and is not intended to benefit his partner. Any satisfaction which the partner attains is accidental.

Generally, the positively selfish person is constructive in his (or her) relationships. He takes into account his partner's attitudes, values, and emotions. He avoids acting in ways which will benefit only him. He derives pleasure from giving pleasure. His goal is for the relationship to please both parties. He strives for a happy relationship and is not afraid to give of himself in order to secure this happiness.

Generally, the negatively selfish person is destructive in his (or her) relationships. He fails to take into account his partner's attitudes, values, and emotions. He acts in ways which will benefit only him. His goal is for the relationship to please primarily him. He strives for his own happiness only; he does not worry about whether or not his partner is happy. He expects that his partner serve him. He does not gain pleasure out of giving; he only gives when he is forced to, that is, he must give in order to receive or he must give in order to alleviate or avoid guilt.

For a clearer picture of the negatively selfish person in a relationship, note the following case:

A young man we'll call George only gave in order to get. His girlfriend of just a few months had liked him very much and looked up to him. George had much control over her. Thus, George, being negatively selfish, had no reason to treat her well; he knew she would stay with him no matter what he did. He tended to exploit her. The day came, however, when his girlfriend became interested in another. Thus, George, wanting to keep the relationship intact so that his needs would remain satisfied, began to treat her better. He now drove her to work daily, something he previously refused to do. He took her to dinners and to shows although before he wouldn't, and now, he decided to give her the ring she had wanted for so long. On its face value, one might view this giving behavior as very altruistic, but here, George is only giving so that she might stay with him and satisfy his needs. Thus, he is giving, not so she will be happy as an end goal in itself but in hopes that she will remain a possession which he needs so badly. Once again secure in the relationship, George will be likely to reduce his giving.

Self-Love Versus Negative Selfishness

At first thought, self-love (self-satisfaction or self-approval) and negative selfishness may seem to go hand in hand because they are both self-oriented. They are, however, opposites. Self-love means that one is satisfied with himself (or herself). He feels good about himself; he has a strong identity and feels comfortable with it. He is a complete individual and need not rely on others in order to feel like a whole person. With or without a relationship, he can exist contently. One who is negatively selfish, however, is not at all satisfied with himself. He needs an overwhelming amount of support and approval; he has a weak identity and often needs to lean on others. He is what one might call an incomplete individual and must rely on others in order to feel complete. Without others satisfying his various needs, he feels very lonely and empty. He cannot happily exist without a relationship.

Thus, one who is negatively selfish cannot have self-love. The negatively selfish person is in constant need. He has those needs because he is very unsatisfied; and because he is so unsatisfied, he does not feel good about himself, and since he does not feel good about himself, he does not have self-love.

If a negatively selfish person appears to have self-love and is involved in a relationship, his apparently high self-image may rely solely on the strength of the love from another. Without this love, his high self-image would plummet.

The key to obtaining self-love is to eliminate negative selfishness. There are two ways of going about this, which brings us back to the optimist and the pessimist. One method of eliminating negative selfishness is what we will call the external method of the optimist: hoping or expecting that all needs will be fulfilled. If the need (or desire) is for great wealth, self-satisfaction will come when he achieves great wealth. If the need (or desire) is for power and fame, self-love will come when he attains power and fame, and if the need is for the perfect relationship, happiness will come when he is involved in the perfect relationship. Of course, the person who feels he cannot have happiness or be at all satisfied until he attains these things is likely to remain unsatisfied.

The internal method is employed by the pessimist. He knows that, realistically, his dreams of great wealth, power and fame, and the perfect relationship are just that—dreams. He knows that the key to self-love lies within his own expectations. He does not expect wealth. He feels fortunate that he can simply earn a living. He does not expect fame as approval and appreciation from his friends is sufficiently uplifting, and he does not expect to have a perfect relationship; he accepts problems as challenging and stimulating.

There is quite a difference between the attitudes and emotions of the optimist and the pessimist. Financial setbacks anger the optimist; they keep him from his goal of wealth whereas the pessimist is more able to accept setbacks because there is no huge goal to be threatened. Criticism hurts the optimist. He views this as a step backward in terms of his self-concept whereas the pessimist accepts criticism as helpful. He is secure where he is and is not threatened. An imperfect relationship frustrates the optimist. A partner is keeping him from what he desires or needs whereas, to the pessimist, imperfection is normal, expected, and accepted.

Because the optimist is in a negatively selfish state of need, he has difficulty lending or giving money or buying gifts (except out of guilt), he cannot praise another (unless under pressure to do so), nor can he give love to another (he can only give of himself if he believes it will result in his receiving). The pessimist, however, is in a positively selfish state. He is freer with an excess of money and can buy gifts without expecting anything in return. He already has as much as he needs; he is secure enough with himself to praise others and to share triumphs without feeling a loss or threat, and because he is self-satisfied emotionally, he is able to give love without expecting another to love him in return.

For the philosophically-minded, there are three types of selfishness which must not be viewed as negative when determining one's ability to give love. They are primal selfishness (need to satisfy a hunger drive, safety motive, etc.), social selfishness (urge to associate with desirable people, to have control over identity, and to secure esteem), and contract selfishness (desire to have written, verbal, or tacit contracts of any sort upheld).

Paradox of Love

Two statements sometimes heard from people concerning the absence of love in their lives are I'm looking for love and I need to love. Each of these statements are spoken by the negatively selfish person, one who is looking to satisfy his (or her) need. Because he is negatively selfish, he does not have self-love, and because he does not have self-love, he is unable to give of himself. Because love is an emotional giving, this person cannot love because he is not genuinely interested in giving, only in receiving. If he does give, it is only in hopes that he will receive. Here, once he fails to receive, his giving is likely to stop and his motivation to give diminishes. This, of course, is not love. Thus, looking for love and actually finding love is paradoxical; one looking for love seeks to receive and one who finds love has sought to give. Love comes from within. Thus, those who look for love should begin their search by looking into themselves, not outside. This is what we will call the paradox of love.

There are many times throughout this work when we attempt to ascertain the difference between love and various pseudo loves. This is the first of these attempts: in regard to the selfishness question, one may determine if he (or she) was in a positive or negative state during (or after) a relationship and if he is (or was) in love by considering this:

A person in a negatively selfish state will find that his pseudo love is likely to fade at times when his needs are (or were) not satisfied. When frustration occurs, his love stops. His giving to the partner also ends. Often, his frustrated love turns to anger, bitterness, and hate. He often attempts to get even with the lover for not satisfying him, then justify this action by saying, "Look what she did to me." A positively selfish person, however, plays a different role. When his relationship ends, his love does not. His giving is pleasurable in itself. If he does not receive, his giving remains unaffected; his love does not change. The negatively selfish person, unlike his positive counterpart, was influenced by forces such as infatuation and lust, not love. He may argue that he was giving, too, but his giving was contingent on his anticipation of receiving.

Being able to love is very much influenced by our attitudes. Do we give love (pseudo love) only in hopes that we receive love in return, or do we give love (true love) for the pleasure of giving? Do we expect others to serve us? To satisfy our every need or desire? Or are we satisfied enough with ourselves in order to have a chance to be satisfied with others as they are, that is, as they say, do we love ourselves enough in order to love others?

Suitable Donor Theory

Even if an individual has a conducive attitude in order to love in terms of pessimism and positive selfishness, he (or she) still may not fall in love. One of our pet terms which will appear periodically through this work explains why: the necessity of a suitable donor. Just as a given person needs a certain type of blood in order to be compatible for a blood transfusion, one needs a certain type of person in order to be compatible emotionally. Some may be receptive to common types. A person can be compatible with most people; others' suitable donor types are rare.

For an example, a guy we'll call Frank has a fairly rare (and highly defined) type. His suitable donor is a type who is intelligent, beautiful, outgoing, dominant, and has a sense of humor. Frank is simply not attracted to those without most of these traits. Susan, however, is compatible with a greater number; intelligence and appearance play a smaller part in what attracts her. She simply desires someone who can be dominant in the relationship.

There are many factors which affect the development of what will become one's suitable donor. One might subconsciously attempt to recapture a revered parent by seeking a partner who possesses similar traits. Also, a person who has always been dominated may feel uncomfortable with anyone who is not dominant. Having many potential partners available is likely to raise the qualifications of what will be a suitable donor; likewise, having few potential partners available is likely to lower them.

A person can fall out of love during a relationship because of changes in his (or her) suitable donor. One's desires may be altered over time, exemplified by the young man who went to college while his high school girlfriend became a cashier at a drugstore. After a few years, the young man began to place a great deal of emphasis on his education in psychology; his girlfriend felt the subject was, as she said, boring. He soon found that he needed a girl with whom he could discuss his ideas. He fell out of love because he outgrew the relationship. Here, the girl, too, fell out of love because her boyfriend had changed from her suitable donor type; he was no longer the possessive, macho type she adored. She no longer felt protected by him; in fact, his newly found knowledge intimidated her. Soon, the relationship ended.

There are different types of suitable donors for different types of relationships. Returning to Frank, anyone who was beautiful but who did not possess a high degree of intelligence was suitable for only a short-term or dating-type relationship. He was open for a long-term relationship only if a girl was beautiful and intelligent. He would consider marriage only if she had every quality he desired. Anyone who was not very good-looking was not suitable for any type of romantically oriented relationship at all.

So basically, the suitable donor theory is this: it is the notion that any given person can only be attracted to or fall in love with certain types of people for reasons he or she may or may not be aware of.

Love Inhibitions

Altogether, there are four conditions which need be present in order for one to love. The first three, as explained, are (1) proper attitude (optimism versus pessimism), (2) positive selfishness, and (3) a suitable donor. The fourth is the absence of any psychological inhibitions which might prevent one from giving love.

Throughout this work, we will note some of the horror stories which occur in some relationships. Tales of manipulation, game playing, and what we will call partner abuse (both emotional and physical) will show how emotional scars from past (and present) relationships can keep one from giving love due to a fear factor—fear of again becoming hurt.

There are three emotional phenomenon which leave one open to becoming hurt. They are love, dependency, and attachment. The following sections explain the sometimes traumatic role dependency and attachment play in our relationships.

Introduction to Dependency

Love is often regarded as the driving force behind relationships. One might think that without love, a relationship dies; with love, all may be conquered. This, however, is hardly the case. There are forces behind a relationship which can be even stronger than love. One such force is emotional dependency.

Dependency is a state of need. Basically, we seek to satisfy any needs that we may have. We may have a need for attention. When we do, we tend to behave in ways to attract that attention. We may have a need to be looked up to. When this need is great, we might tend to associate with those who will look up to us or to work at something which will increase our value in others' eyes. We may be dependent on security, that is, we may need to have a relationship with someone who will make us a loved, long-term, and exclusive partner. There may be other kinds of dependencies we may need to have satisfied. Such needs include power over another, affection, belonging, approval, and support.

Various dependent states may or may not be constant. Some people continually need a sense of, for example, approval; others need approval only at certain times. Still, others need virtually none. Dependent states can vary tremendously in intensity.

Dependencies can develop before or during a relationship. When dependencies occur before a relationship, one tends to seek a relationship which will satisfy whatever needs are present. Thus, this person's future partners will find themselves in a difficult position; their sole purpose will be to satisfy his (or her) needs. If they do not, the dependent party becomes frustrated, and the relationship will no longer be necessary. Relationships which are based on dependency satisfaction hardly feature love as a component. Love is a giving whereas an unsatisfied, need-laden individual looks only to receive. (If he does give, again, this giving is only done with a hope or expectation of receiving.) The unsatisfied, dependent, negatively selfish person cannot give love.

Dependencies can develop within a relationship. Needs can be created. A need for power in a relationship