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

The problem with fundamentalism, part 2: Religious fundamentalism

This is the second part of a two part series where I discuss the problems I see with two prevalent forms of fundamentalism (the first discussed Constitution and fundamentalism: http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-with-fundamentalism-part-1.html ).  In this part, I will be discussing biblical fundamentalism.  I will be referring to sources more frequently here, as I cannot claim the expertise I could for the last installment. Let me start by saying that I understand this is an extremely controversial topic, especially the stance I am taking.  My goal is not to offend, but it is instead to discuss why I think a fundamentalist approach to the Bible (and, in some respects, any text) has insurmountable problems.  I think that most Fundamentalists I know are quite willing to discuss why they believe their hermeneutic approach is the correct one, so my hope is that they are equally sanguine when someone explains why that pathway seems problematic. Here is t...

The problem with fundamentalism, part 1: Constitutional fundamentalism

In this two-part series, I plan on discussing the major issues I see with two prevalent types of fundamentalism: constitutional and biblical.  Though the two need not be related, it appears to me that one often leads to the other. This first installment is on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution.  I have some expertise here, given that I have my JD and an undergraduate in English, so I will rarely be referring to other sources (outside the Constitution itself).  In this discussion, I am defining constitutional fundamentalism as a combination of "originalism" -- look at what the words meant when they were originally written -- and "strict constructionism" -- go strictly by the words on the page, with no reference to anything external, avoiding inferences. Original intent Ethical considerations Before I get into a more textual discussion, first I would like to point out that the founders were extremely flawed, and the document they made was, to mo...

Why COVID-19 is MUCH worse than the seasonal flu

This is the second in a series of posts about the COVID-19 pandemic . This installment is discussing why COVID-19 is much, much worse than the seasonal flu. Here it is, in a nutshell : COVID-19 is more contagious, more deadly, already has more known long-term impacts, has no vaccine or truly effective treatments, and has no apparent seasonality. Contagion SARS-COV-2 is much more contagious. The median R0 (average number of people infected by each person when nobody is immune) is 5.7 , or more optimistically 2.5 . For the pandemic to go away, R0 would need to effectively be less than 1.  The estimate of the 1918 novel flu was between 1.2 and 2.4 .  (An R0 of 5.7 means we need over 80% of the population to be immune to reach effective herd immunity .) Beyond that, the incubation period is long, and the number of transmissions before symptoms begin hovers near half those infected . And the duration of being contagious is longer, up to 10 days after the first symptoms. That means ...