533. Cohabitation And The Safe Haven
Some days ago, I exchanged a few emails with someone, who appeared as a good match by the first superficial impression. But the futility of pursuing this contact became evident, when he explained his situation: By marrying or cohabiting, he would loose his rather high widower's pension.
I personally consider a happy relationship being a safe haven as worth much more than money. I would not hesitate to accept a man, who is suitable and compatible, no matter his poverty. I would reject an unsuitable and incompatible man, no matter his affluence. Generally I think this widower's priority of his money is a mistake.
But when it comes to considering my own person, I do not even expect, let alone demand from someone to value living with me as preferable over his money or any other priorities. A man has his priorities and choices, and whenever they are incongruent with mine, I do not consider myself as a sufficient reason to modify them. Any decision in my favor would only be valid, if it is based upon a man's need, independent of any influence from my side. A man's incongruent priorities are a reason to keep away from him, not a justification for stupid and futile attempts to influence him
Some days ago, I exchanged a few emails with someone, who appeared as a good match by the first superficial impression. But the futility of pursuing this contact became evident, when he explained his situation: By marrying or cohabiting, he would loose his rather high widower's pension.
I personally consider a happy relationship being a safe haven as worth much more than money. I would not hesitate to accept a man, who is suitable and compatible, no matter his poverty. I would reject an unsuitable and incompatible man, no matter his affluence. Generally I think this widower's priority of his money is a mistake.
But when it comes to considering my own person, I do not even expect, let alone demand from someone to value living with me as preferable over his money or any other priorities. A man has his priorities and choices, and whenever they are incongruent with mine, I do not consider myself as a sufficient reason to modify them. Any decision in my favor would only be valid, if it is based upon a man's need, independent of any influence from my side. A man's incongruent priorities are a reason to keep away from him, not a justification for stupid and futile attempts to influence him
The essence of a bonded and committed relationship is for me the safe haven, which it cannot be without cohabitation. Only a cohabiting couple really sits in the same boat, for better or for worse. Only when sharing the home and applying the shared survival resources, both financial and skills, then all troubles, inclemencies and problems of everyday life really concern both partners equally without a back door. Whenever something breaks or goes wrong, the partner in a LAT-relationship can feel relaxed as he is not under the same pressure to solve the problem. Having still his own home to retreat to, he has the back door to abandon the partner in need.
Practical problems like when a needed household appliance or installation breaks cause situational pressure. The less there is the alternative of affording the easiest and most comfortable solution, the stronger is the pressure upon me. My resources are more skills than money. Being alone under the pressure of needing to cope with situational problems of any kind drains and exhausts me, no matter how successful I am in solving it. Even when I find a solution making me feel clever and adding to my confidence, the coping process nevertheless leaves me drained.
Practical problems like when a needed household appliance or installation breaks cause situational pressure. The less there is the alternative of affording the easiest and most comfortable solution, the stronger is the pressure upon me. My resources are more skills than money. Being alone under the pressure of needing to cope with situational problems of any kind drains and exhausts me, no matter how successful I am in solving it. Even when I find a solution making me feel clever and adding to my confidence, the coping process nevertheless leaves me drained.
The safe haven of a cohabiting relationship, in which the partner is equally concerned by situational pressures of any kind, is the relief I need to not get drained. Being alone when problems require coping is what drains me.
Of course, being equally concerned does by itself not suffice as a relief. A safe haven requires not only to be equally concerned as a team by all problems, but also to share basic agreements about rational coping strategies derived from the same evaluation of the shared situation and resources. Only this enables a couple to be a team in problem solving and a source of relief to each other.
Of course, being equally concerned does by itself not suffice as a relief. A safe haven requires not only to be equally concerned as a team by all problems, but also to share basic agreements about rational coping strategies derived from the same evaluation of the shared situation and resources. Only this enables a couple to be a team in problem solving and a source of relief to each other.
Someone adding more pressure upon me than the problem itself can instead make the situation even worse.
I cannot accept a man's putting pressure upon me to waste my own money. If a man is as poor as I am, I expect him to support me in solving problems by the principle of compensating for expenses by efforts. He can give me the best relief by sharing the efforts.
Only if a man can afford himself the comfortable expensive solutions preferred by him, it is his choice.
But the poor man putting pressure upon me to waste my own limited money on the comfortable solution sparing him efforts drains me even more, having to cope with the combined pressure of the technical problem and from him.
A safe haven can bring reciprocally many protecting and relieving benefits, no matter if the problems are practical, social, psychological, physical. The emphasis is on the reciprocity. The more a man also needs a safe haven, the more I can expect to be given one in return. This is very significant.
A man's refusal to cohabit tells me, that his goal is not the same kind of a safe haven as is mine and logically then a safe haven is also not available for me.
A man's refusal to cohabit tells me, that his goal is not the same kind of a safe haven as is mine and logically then a safe haven is also not available for me.
A LAT arrangement enables a man to get all the benefits of using a woman's body at his convenience, as this can be achieved without cohabitation. But a LAT arrangement also enables a man to limit, what he decides to give to the woman.
A man's refusing to cohabit indicates and implies the presence of some or all of the following good reasons justifying suspicion. While his superficial reasons may appear as convincing as is the example of the widower's pension of my contact, but the following reasons are probably hidden behind:
1. A man does not expect a safe haven available from any woman, because he commodifies her and he is blind to even notice any other option besides using her. A man can experience a safe haven only, if he is aware and appreciative of women being persons with cognitive qualities sufficient as providers of a safe haven.
2. A man has already a fragmented supportive system consisting of any combination including his family of origin, friends and even exes and children. He does not feel a need for a safe haven, which would motivate him to provide one for a woman. Having sufficient supply for all other social and psychological needs, a woman is only a body. Only homeostasis is not available from his supportive system.
A man's refusing to cohabit indicates and implies the presence of some or all of the following good reasons justifying suspicion. While his superficial reasons may appear as convincing as is the example of the widower's pension of my contact, but the following reasons are probably hidden behind:
1. A man does not expect a safe haven available from any woman, because he commodifies her and he is blind to even notice any other option besides using her. A man can experience a safe haven only, if he is aware and appreciative of women being persons with cognitive qualities sufficient as providers of a safe haven.
2. A man has already a fragmented supportive system consisting of any combination including his family of origin, friends and even exes and children. He does not feel a need for a safe haven, which would motivate him to provide one for a woman. Having sufficient supply for all other social and psychological needs, a woman is only a body. Only homeostasis is not available from his supportive system.
3. A man is so powerful and affluent, that he solves all problems by paying services, no matter if it is the craftsman or the therapist. If he is decent, he prefers a monogamous relationship for his homeostasis over paying prostitutes.
As I mentioned already before, the decision to get involved with someone has to be a very careful rational decision, which certainly cannot be rushed into without a high risk of failure. What matters is is the shared goal of cohabitation and the shared need of a safe haven. Sharing the goal of cohabitation is very different from making the mistake to rush into cohabitation with a haphazard person.
As I mentioned already before, the decision to get involved with someone has to be a very careful rational decision, which certainly cannot be rushed into without a high risk of failure. What matters is is the shared goal of cohabitation and the shared need of a safe haven. Sharing the goal of cohabitation is very different from making the mistake to rush into cohabitation with a haphazard person.
The refusal of cohabitation is a good reason not to pursue a contact, but the shared goal alone is only one of many necessary but not sufficient criteria for compatibility.
