Skip to main content

Other people's relationships

I find it hard to understand how wrapped up some get in other people's relationships.  I've had many friends and family split from their significant others in the last couple of years, and watching the dynamics of how various people reacted has been ... entertaining, maybe?  Certainly interesting.  I have sometimes found myself feeling like Bones, scratching my head and saying, "I don't know what that means."  Here are some examples, anonymized as much as possible.

1)  A friend splits up with her husband.  Okay, I get the normal splitting of friends (though I think, with mature groups of people, that is unnecessary).  What I don't get is anger at the split.  Why would people get mad at their friends for splitting with their spouses?  What sort of investment do I have in that relationship?  The answer should be none.  I mean, it may make situations socially awkward, and it may inconvenience me now ... but actual anger?  Recriminations?  Now, this isn't to say that the circumstances of the break-up might reveal new things about your friend that you didn't know, and perhaps those new things are enough to drop them from the "friend" category -- that's understandable.  But, in that way, it's no different from getting fired from a job, or moving to a new neighborhood, or anything that can reveal character traits.  But some people get really invested in their friends' relationships and feel personally betrayed by a split.  Worse, they seem to feel entitled to that feeling, and to expect her to ... I don't know, change her mind about splitting up with her husband, maybe? ...
in order to make the friend feel better.  Wow, talk about entitlement.
2)  The flip side of that coin is when your friend splits with her husband, then she feels entitled to tell you that you have to choose between being friends with her or her ex.  The rationale seems to be something along the lines of, "How could you possibly like him?  He is a horrible person!"  Of course, this is usually ludicrous.  It is unlikely that the break-up itself changed the spouse.  What she is really saying is that she wants you to validate her anger and pain, and she wants that so much that she wants you to break off the relationship that you created with her ex.  The whole reason you HAVE the relationship, of course, is because your friend introduced her husband to you.  And the truly crazy thing is that ... they might still get back together.  At that point, of course, you are to forget all the reasons you hated the spouse, because, if she can forgive him, why can't you?  Blah.  Besides the obvious problem of sharing information (gossipping to an ex-spouse about the current goings-on of their ex is, and should remain, off-limits), this sort of friend-choosing-through-loyalty is not something that's okay to ask.
Again, I want to limit that a bit.  If the spouse actually DID reveal something about himself in the break-up, it might very well be reasonable for you to stop being friends with him.  And you may choose not to hang out with someone that hurt a dear friend, even if you don't stop being friends with that someone.  But your friend asking you to stop being friends ... not so much.
3)  This same logic goes with friend-to-friend relationships.  As a kid, I didn't see this happening much (though I would hear about it).  As a parent, I have heard it discussed many, many times -- friend A hurt friend B, so I have to choose between them.  Why?  you just have to choose whether friend A is someone you want to be friends with, and whether friend B is someone you want to be friends with, just like with anything else.
4)  This applies to parents with their children.  If your kid has a girlfriend, and they are splitting up ... that doesn't mean that the girlfriend is now a horrible person.  And it certainly does not mean you should be upset by the split, or feel betrayed by it.  Besides putting some weird pressure on your son, you should have better things to worry about.
5)  And that brings me to children with their parents.  You can be very practically invested in your parents' relationship, especially as a child.  But should you view it as a *personal* betrayal if they split?  Of course not, unless you think that they should remain together solely because it makes life easier for you.  You might think poorly of them for other reasons (religious, moral, practical, whatever), but it should not be because you think they owed it to you to stay together.

Some may view this as being disloyal.  They are certainly welcome to their opinions, but my view of loyalty is more around the notion that I will be there for you when you need me, and I will believe you when tell me something, and I will trust you with important aspects of my life.  It doesn't mean that I will abdicate my responsibility to make my own decisions about friends and relationships, or that I will pick and choose among my friends to suit somebody else's whim.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers. I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make. Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you kno