Deepness or dysfunction?

[Mrin]

So I've been helping a friend of mine go through a break up. She didn't date the guy all that long and from what she's told me, they hadn't had that many dates. But he was the first guy she "dated with intention" in years and her decision to break it off has been really hard on her. We both love over analyzing this stuff and in talking her through it we kinda stumbled upon a truth: 

people often mistake dysfunction for deepness in a relationship

She kept saying, "we have a really deep connection" and I kept asking her to describe why. Was is great sex? No. Super strong physical chemistry? Not really. Amazing conversations? Good but not amazing. The more I asked the more curious she became trying to find out why she thought it was a deep connection. They had all sorts of geographic challenges. They had some fundamental personality mismatches.

After a day or two of reflection she told me that the reason she felt like they had a deep connection was that issues between them started almost on day 1 but he was willing to discuss the issue with her. And whenever an issue did pop up, which they often did, he was always very open to talking them through. They never really resolved any of the issues but she said she felt heard or at least expressed.

That was why she felt such a deep connection. 

Which I found really interesting. From my perspective, what she was describing was functional dysfunction. I say that because while, in the end, their relationship was completely dysfunctional, their desire to "work on it" by discussing it made it feel like she had a deep connection. But for their willingness to discuss their problems at length, this was a perfectly shallow and insignificant relationship. Nothing really ever changed as a result of their "work" and that is what ultimately lead to her decision to break it off.

As she talked her way through it she was surprised to find that she hadn't had a deep connection at all, but had rather mistaken dysfunction for deepness (her words). I asked if she meant effort instead of dysfunction and she said no because aside from just talking about their issues, nothing ever changed.

I took this idea and flipped back through the annals of my love life and found that I too had fallen victim this. In both nascent and established relationships. Although for me, I sometimes didn't even need the functional aspect. The dysfunction alone was enough. I didn't always need the functional aspect to it - though I suspect the sex had something to do with it as well. Ha! Crazy to think about!

Does this feel familiar to anyone else? Whether is is dysfunction alone or whether it needs that functional element.

Mrin

[Wiseman2]

Agree. Intensity often masquerades as intimacy. Drama masquerades as exciting. 

[Alpacalia]

Agree too.

Especially when people come on really strong initially.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Alpaca

[Weezy1973]

Agree. People also often mistake sexual chemistry and attraction for “deepness”. 

[chillii]

l can't believe the first thing you asked her was it the sexual , that comes from depth , it isn't depth itself without anything else. Also can believe her answers . Doesn't take much these days for some it seems does it , sounds like neither of you have ever had much depth with anyone tbh.

[introverted1]

I think some of this is a movie-induced belief that having obstacles to overcome means you were destined to be together. This is a pretty common romance movie/novel theme.

If you have to slay a dragon in order to be together it's so much more rewarding than if you simply have to turn up for the date at the appointed time.

[spiderowl]

She said she felt 'heard' and he let her express herself.  That might be why she felt it was such a strong connection despite it not working out.  Sadly, in many relationships that fail, one or both parties does not feel heard or allowed to express their feelings.

[poppyfields]

I'm projecting but there were times I felt there was a "deep connection" when in truth I was merely infatuated (possessed with an intense but short-lived passion or admiration for someone).

When the infatuation ended and I looked/look back, I realized there really wasn't much of a deep connection at all, it was my mind playing tricks, my own personal mind spin.

I would bet money @Mrin that this is what your friend was experiencing as well...

Edited February 1, 2022 by poppyfields

[Mrin]

On 1/31/2022 at 5:18 AM, introverted1 said:

I think some of this is a movie-induced belief that having obstacles to overcome means you were destined to be together. This is a pretty common romance movie/novel theme.

If you have to slay a dragon in order to be together it's so much more rewarding than if you simply have to turn up for the date at the appointed time.

Oh that's a really interesting thought isn't it? I would argue that we actually get bombarded with two totally contradictory fantasy beliefs really: 1) the slaying the dragon belief that you referenced and 2) the fairy tale "and they lived happily ever after" belief. Neither are workable.  

Idea: Totally just going to riff here a second but try this on. The "slaying the dragon" is rooted in accomplishment and overcoming hardship. Right? Well, what if there was something else at play. There is this concept that I call "the curse of the blue water sailor" (it actually has a real name I just don't remember it). Okay the idea goes that sailors that sail across oceans can get depressed or despondent because every day basically looks like the last landmark wise. Ocean, nothing but ocean - as far as you can see. Sure the sea or weather might be different from day to day but there are no landmarks by which to judge have far you've traveled. After a while it wears on you psychologically and you can feel like you're stuck or not making any headway.

Okay, so what if we apply that same idea to relationships? What if the relationship dramas that dysfunction brings is a way of providing those "landmarks" by which you can judge how far your relationship has progressed. That maybe these bumps provide a sense of realness or accomplishment as compared to the placid drama free relationship? At least initially? I know that one of my more drama filled past relationships eventually felt like a never ending series of bumps so much so that I couldn't even remember any of the bumps individually.,

[Mrin]

15 hours ago, poppyfields said:

I'm projecting but there were times I felt there was a "deep connection" when in truth I was merely infatuated (possessed with an intense but short-lived passion or admiration for someone).

When the infatuation ended and I looked/look back, I realized there really wasn't much of a deep connection at all, it was my mind playing tricks, my own personal mind spin.

I would bet money @Mrin that this is what your friend was experiencing as well...

Yeah, I was initially going down the limerence road too. We actually talked about it and it didn't manifest in the usual ways. Then again, she's a thinker not a feeler so limerence or infatuation probably shows up differently. Ha! 

That being said, you're so right about being able to spot it in the rearview mirror. I haven't felt it in a long time but looking back I can totally spot the few times in my life were it was 100% limerence or infatuation. Ha! 

[mark clemson]

10 hours ago, Mrin said:

Okay, so what if we apply that same idea to relationships? What if the relationship dramas that dysfunction brings is a way of providing those "landmarks" by which you can judge how far your relationship has progressed. That maybe these bumps provide a sense of realness or accomplishment as compared to the placid drama free relationship?

Interesting idea. Even though you're actually getting nowhere (or at least not really progressing the relationship particularly fast) since you've done SOMETHING due to the "churn" of drama, you essentially feel like this something = "progress" in the relationship (at least mentally).

Whereas a low-drama relationship doesn't feel as much like there's "a lot happening" because there isn't the sort of busyness and "churn" created by unnecessary drama and repairing things, etc. Less perceived "stuff happening" = perception of less progress.

I'd say the idea has plausibility.

Edited February 2, 2022 by mark clemson

[Taramere]

On 1/28/2022 at 9:11 PM, Mrin said:

Does this feel familiar to anyone else? Whether is is dysfunction alone or whether it needs that functional element.

Mrin

It's difficult to know without witnessing the relationship, but it doesn't sound as though it was necessarily all that dramatic or dysfunctional.  What you describe sounds more like a relationship that wasn't right for the long term, but in which she might have experienced some personal growth in terms of learning how to communicate openly about issues...which will probably give her something valuable to take to another relationship.  Just because two people have lots of great conversations about all sorts of things, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll be equipped to handle a serious conflict that springs up between the two of them.  If her connection with this guy was of a sort where they were able to talk readily and openly about issues, then this might be precisely why the major personality differences between them (that clarified why this relationship likely wouldn't work in the long term) became apparent so early on.

So it doesn't necessarily sound like a dysfunctional connection to me, so much as them having had a very good connection in terms of both sex and how they communicated with each other about problems - but that other ingredients necessary for it to be a successful long term relationship weren't there.  I don't say this to be a contrarian, but we're only hearing about her relationship through you, and since you seem to have a somewhat negative view of it then it's inevitable that people hearing you talk about it will assume "okay, this sounds like a dramatic, dysfunctional relationship". 

I think if I were her in this situation, hearing you describing what sounds like a pretty okay-for-the-short-term relationship (that doesn't appear to have left her in any sort of terrible place) as dysfunctional and dramatic, I would probably challenge you on that perception and maybe conclude that perhaps I'd overshared with you about it..  I'm just conscious that we're only hearing about this through you, and even if the relationship wasn't a goer in the long term and they turned out to have irresolvable differences, it seems a little unnecessarily negative and demeaning to both her and the guy to describe it with terms like "functional dysfunction." and "shallow and insignificant".