Category: Emotional wounds

Do You Think That Your Love Should Be Perfect?

A function of true love is allowing for the knowledge that we do not love perfectly all the time.

When somebody expects the other person in their relationship to consider the “love” they give as always flawless, there is a mono-dimensionality in their perception: they can only see themselves as either good or bad; they cannot tolerate feeling like a bad person.

But being “good” does not actually allow being loving, because it doesn’t leave any space for the true perception of other people’s pain caused by our behaviour (or even just our own pain).

In this scenario the person will always demand that their “love” is recognised as proof of their goodness.

They cannot afford to have “flaws”, because that would make them unlovable. This is the irony of trying to be loving: It suppresses, controls and misses real love instead.

On the contrary, a person who cares about being loving will be happy to acknowledge where their love’s limited, as that relieves the loved one from the confusion this conflicting experience brings :being told you are loved when your experience doesn’t match the label.

We have learned to accept fault for not having been loved.

But, ironically, only when we’re not focused on appearing loving, can the result ever be love. If we are able to say: “Friend/lover/family member, you are correct in feeling unloved because I have not loved you as you need”, we are saving that person from the inner confusion of  feeling not fully loved, while being told otherwise by their loved ones.

Note that we are not saying we are obliged to love either, as indeed we never are. So we are also freeing ourselves from the expectation of loving perfectly and naming what is love, love and what is not, no-one’s fault. We are all growing in love, all the time. And we can only develop our love by seeing the reality of where it hasn’t expanded yet, always compassionately.

Where we recognize another’s unmet need, we open up the space for it to be met by anyone, including them and ourselves and we also allow ourselves to have free will in choosing whether we’d like to meet that need.

It’s like all elements of love are now individual expressions both in what we choose to give and what we desire to receive.

And isn’t that the truth of the matter anyhow: that we are all individuals and therefore our needs cannot be the same and we cannot expect everyone to generically be able and desire to meet all of our needs?

By the way, having only two parents also seems entirely wrong.

This is why we are both confused and restricted in our concept of love/emotional needs, because we’ve had to adjust to only two persons’ abilities and worse, their incorrect perception and evaluation of those abilities too.

Perhaps we would do much much better growing up in communities rather than households, extended families, perhaps even poly-relationships instead of one woman and one man. Heck, most of us don’t even get both of our parents to begin with!

If we had love available to us from multiple people, we would not be so easily conflicted about the supposed “love” we’re told we’re getting from our caretakers and we would not have to feel either guilty for needing what we need or angry at not getting it.

We are all correct both in what we need and what we want to give, but only if things are clear (love is love and no is no), and we actually have options to go satisfy our needs elsewhere.

The solution then is good pairing! But it all starts with each one of us learning about ourselves.

Our whole lives are about discovering what we want, who we are through each experience. So let us make that come into focus finally instead of being preoccupied with whether we look loving or not. We are not selfish for needing and others are not selfish for not giving. We all have the right to choose to be as loving as we want.

And no-one’s unlovable. We just have to be with the people that naturally want to give what we want to receive.

Filed under: Emotional woundsTagged with: , , , , , ,

Do You Feel Guilty When You Don’t Work?

One of the most difficult aspects of conditioning is the idea of time/scheduling: We are so conditioned to equate life to a schedule that we get blasted with massive and complex guilt if we ever veer outside of it; the underlying thought is “I shouldn’t trust my natural desires to guide my days. Horrible things will happen if I let go to myself”.

But why do we believe that?

Because our parents, our teachers and our society taught us that. We weren’t supported to trust our inner authority, our inner guidance, constantly being forced to go where we didn’t want to go and do what we protested we didn’t want to do.

We learned that to be “a good boy/good girl” we needed to obey, to discard our own wants and that “the right thing to do” came from outside sources.

We are comfortable with the idea of the weekend and the vacation, only because they are allowed by someone else.

Yet, all of us dream of free time/energy to do the things we want, the blissful permission to “play” in life and to trust in our instinctual rhythms (and also to sleep when we want and eat what and when we want), assured that we will be taken care of in the process.

We imagine that it’s time, money or any other external restriction that disallows us, but it’s not.

It’s only that we don’t feel we have permission to live this way, to trust that our being will naturally want to do what it’s really supposed to- what it came here to do, not what we learned it must- and that everything that it does not want to do, it SHOULD NOT actually do.

We do not see that it was our parents, teachers, society that created the perception that we wouldn’t be supported and protected in life by following ourselves, that we got taught it by how they acted towards us.

They chose to withdraw their approval or even punish us whenever we tried to follow ourselves.

They fabricated this style of living with no proof whatsoever that if we were allowed to let go and trust in ourselves that we would become a negative influence on the world or ourselves.

All they knew was that the child had no knowledge of the practical aspects of the world that pertained to survival. It just didn’t know how to protect itself.

So they used the fact that the child depended on the parent/society to survive to deny ALL of its inner knowledge.

And so we have had generations upon generations of people who have been supported in survival only by adhering to the whole paradigm of their parents’ way of life: “Throw yourself out or fend for yourself as a child”.

Obviously, children aren’t meant to survive on their own.

But they are meant to follow themselves when it comes to building their lives from the get-go.

No-one should ever have the right to control their child just because its survival is dependent. Parents are not supposed to mould their children.

They are not supposed to teach their children who to be. Just how life practically works (“this burns”, “that’s not edible”, “this is what this word means” etc).

This schedules-instead-of-life system is slavery and it is inherited, not natural, loving or effective.

Filed under: Emotional woundsTagged with: , , , , , , ,

Boys Don’t Need Tough Love

THE male wound is…”tough love”:

“I love you, therefore, I withdraw from you, so that you become a man.”

“I love you, therefore I test you, so that you prove you are a man”.

This presents itself in money-making/job-succeeding especially.

And here’s the actual truth: It is not love to withdraw from a boy – nor a man. It is emotional abandonment and emotional violence.

It is entirely different to allow a boy to venture out, to discover and to invent himself.

That is something a boy does in his own time and WITH his father’s positive reinforcement and loving trust.

A loved boy senses his father’s presence always with him as a benevolent force, protective, emotionally generous and endlessly kind.

A father not only does not require proof, but he never even implies that his son’s worth or masculine identity are ever in question.

He is the presence that presents the world as safe and available for the son to explore within.

A loving father never scares, tests or throws his son into the deep.

There is no “sink or swim” lessons that he needs to “teach” him, because most of all, the father shows his son that he is not meant to do life all by himself.

He does not teach him that suffering and struggling is heroic (it’s actually impossible, unnecessary, lonely and isolating) and that cruelty and toughness does makes a man.

Instead he teaches him that accepting and asking for help is connecting, and that living is to be with and for others, not above and not away.

Filed under: Emotional woundsTagged with: , , , , , ,