What do you want from a relationship?

[hntnhole]

So we've had some interesting discourse regarding one particular event that often occurs in a relationship, which leads me to wonder:  What do you want in a relationship?

Since there are different kinds, different expectations, all of that, what is important to you?  It can be anything from companionship to a sex partner to financial stability to an "anchor" in the vagaries of life to someone to care for/look after to anything & everything in between. 

Since the word relationship implies a joint give & take, what are you willing/able to bring to a relationship?  Try to be specific in what you're willing to give - which, in a sense - is perhaps even more important that what you want out of it.  There are no wrong answers.  Thanks.

[Guest]

mostly hot guys into my profile, older prefered but not mandatory. guys who feel their cock rise from my interests and pics

[hntnhole]

Thanks, nastysubbbbottom, for the reply.

If I were on the prowl for a relationship, it would be somewhat limited.  I wouldn't be looking for "love" - I would be looking for some compatible, shared values of course, and an intelligent guy able to carry a conversation.  I would be perhaps interested in a guy who has interests other than just the sexual, a well-rounded kind of guy.  I'm afraid I don't deal well with dullness, disinterest, dishonesty, so it would have to be an "open" type of relationship -   No "rules" about outside sex, no cultural bs accepted.  I'd want a free-thinker, a guy who knows himself, knows what he needs, and gets it.  

I would want to be able to trust him, of course, and give him no reason to become distrustful of me.  And, I would not be interested in a guy addicted to chemicals, since I've already had a go-around with one of those.  

I could bring honesty to a relationship, I could bring trustworthiness, and some of the nicer things in life.  I would not be willing to support him though, since I would want a responsible kind of guy, and being involved in gainful work/volunteerism is an important part of one's character.   I would enjoy "spur-of-the-moment" stuff like lets go to X place for supper, or see an exhibit or the rodeo or whatever.  That kind of thing is fun too.  

Since I'm mostly Top, preferably a cumdump I could whore out and enjoy sharing.  Send him out for loads if I'm busy with something else.  Hit the fuckjoints together, so I could watch, encourage, help deepen and reinforce his Lusts, all of that.  All of that said, I'm not all that interested in a relationship; I'm interested in what kind of things guys on BZ would want in one.  

Thanks again for your reply.

[rock-cock-jock]

This might sound crazy but I've always thought that Maslow's hierarchy of needs (attached) is also applicable for the outcomes that one could want out of a relationship. The lower tiers shouldn't be considered less important, but more oriented toward the hedonistic while the higher are more oriented toward the mental.

1) At the base level is good sex- it's foundational to everything and should be what you build the relationship on at the beginning. The pyramid will topple if the foundation is weak.

2) Next, rather than 'safety,' I think 'stability' is a better term with the idea being that there is enough mutual affection to reliably be there for each other to satisfy any physiological needs for intimacy, companionship and all those lovey dove bond type things. Stable, like a rock.

3) Next, is the requirement to fit the relationship into your pre existing friendship circle and family which will vary from person to person but will generally require mutually compatible values and personalities.   

4) Next, I think that a healthy relationship should be one where your partner makes you feel better about yourself i.e. supports your self esteem and sense of respect. Conversely, a toxic partner, like toxic friends, will just drain you of your sense of self like Wormtongue in Lord of the Rings where the king's mind was poisoned with just words.

5) This for me is the ideal - to have a partner that quite simply makes you a more awesome person. Everyone has different ideas of what they would ideally like to accomplish in life, whether it's a job thing, a body thing, a mind thing, combination of all, whatever, and the partner, whether it's through connections or past experiences or just a proactive attitude, just makes it happen. 

I also think that the pursuit and accomplishment of all these different needs will scale depending on your growth as a person (as well as your partner's growth). That's why, I feel like you should never stop pushing yourself to be better because the meaning that you find via the things that you accomplish in your relationship will be that much better. Maybe I'm a hopefully romantic but this is how I want things to be.

 

[hntnhole]

9 hours ago, rock-cock-jock said:

This might sound crazy

Thanks, rock-cock-jock, for that interesting response.  I think it's the farthest thing from "crazy".  I'd not known of the Maslow pyramid, and I see it's geared towards marketing.  The only layer of that pyramid I might question would be the middle one: Family Connections.  While I know there are many guys who's family affirms and upholds their "gayness", that affirmation seldom includes our focus on raw sex, particularly with many men.  It occurs however, that the biological family can be replaced with a "family-of-choice", aka a "circle of friends".  I know that in my experience, only one member of my family came anywhere close to accepting my life-partner, and they knew absolutely nothing about our devotion to Pigsex with many, many men.  While some members of my own family were invited to our home a number of times, we were never invited to theirs for so much as a cup of coffee, let alone a meal.  That applies to parents, cousins, even a sister whom I love, and that love is returned.  I might add that there are ties (both inculcated and professional) to O.R. in each case, and I doubt it ever occurred to any of them that they might consider some measure of equality.  

9 hours ago, rock-cock-jock said:

I also think that the pursuit and accomplishment of all these different needs will scale depending on your growth as a person (as well as your partner's growth). That's why, I feel like you should never stop pushing yourself to be better because the meaning that you find via the things that you accomplish in your relationship will be that much better. Maybe I'm a hopefully romantic but this is how I want things to be.

I completely agree.  Each day presents a new opportunity to be a better man, and even when we fall short sometimes, the next day will be another chance.  Supporting a partner (relationship) in his journey, and receiving support from him in our own journey is crucial to the health of the relationship.  Another way to put it might be enjoying a really close friendship with a guy, each guy supporting the other and receiving support in return.  I find it interesting that sexual needs are at the foundational level, in that many folks outside our little niche of proclivities would put other issues at a more basic level.  The implication of the pyramid then, is health of the sexual quotient of the relationship, which includes accepting, upholding, sharing, celebrating whatever that requirement may be.  Thanks for sharing that pyramid and your interesting commentary.  Cheers !!

[rock-cock-jock]

20 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The only layer of that pyramid I might question would be the middle one: Family Connections.  While I know there are many guys who's family affirms and upholds their "gayness", that affirmation seldom includes our focus on raw sex, particularly with many men.  It occurs however, that the biological family can be replaced with a "family-of-choice", aka a "circle of friends".  I know that in my experience, only one member of my family came anywhere close to accepting my life-partner, and they knew absolutely nothing about our devotion to Pigsex with many, many men. 

Yeah, that's a fair point and I think ostracism from relatives for being gay is hardly uncommon. But I still think that incorporating a serious relationship partner into a family and friend circle is an important and necessary milestone. I realize that navigating the dynamics is difficult (especially if some of them believe that gays: 1) will all burn in hell because, y'know, religion. 2) are all child molesters 3) will spread their hiv from sharing toilet seats etc etc) but family and friends are likely the two tightest social support networks in a person's life and I feel like if you're in love with a serious romantic partner, they need to be a part of that network in a meaningful way as well. That's how it is for straight relationships and that's how it should be for any other sexuality. I don't think I'm being too unrealistically idealistic in pushing for it; indeed, if gays keep avoiding it, normalizing that standard will just keep getting delayed. And yeah, there might be conflict but if 'family' and 'friends' can't accept that, hard decisions might need to be made on who are really family (and not just biologically linked) and who are really friends (and not just acquaintances), especially if some of them are toxic on the issue and affect your mentality and your relationship. On a more abstract level, I feel like the people who you choose to surround yourself with and the dynamics you have with them are all a representation of who you are as a person. And also a part of one's growth as a person is how socially capable and embedded you are with friends/community/professional relationships etc. So yeah, I do think that it's a legit relationship need for the social worlds of two partners to be able to fit somewhat cohesively.

20 hours ago, hntnhole said:

  I find it interesting that sexual needs are at the foundational level, in that many folks outside our little niche of proclivities would put other issues at a more basic level. 

I think the folks in our niche of proclivities should be given due credit. Social stigma aside, being a slut requires many many repetitions and hours of hard labour. Isn't that the basis of becoming a skilled tradesman or a specialized expert? But yeah, I'm probably an extremist on this issue though because I believe all aspects of a healthy relationship are connected organically on a biological level stemming from good sex. <mini rant> That's why I think that ppl in sexless relationships/marriages trying to force it with rando strategies like a kid or a pet or counselling or guilt tripping or whatever are just doomed to failure or end up with a meaningless shell. A relationship is something that happens from the bottom up (pun!) not the top down. I think a lot of the social dynamics and compatibility are affected by the raw interchange of pheromones and oxytocin as well as the conditioning of all the neurotransmission going on too.  If you're not having sex, address it head on and figure out the root causes and not just try to patch things up with excuses like, 'oh it's just age', or 'this is just how it is' or just straight on denial. Here's some blunt advice - got a limp dick? get ed pills and ask your doctor to help diagnose. no libido? go check your blood work make a list of possible reasons and talk to your doctor. hormones out of whack? see an endocrinologist and get hormone replacement. got fat and not attractive anymore? set a diet and exercise plan and stick to it. Obviously it can be more complicated than that but my point is it's vital to be proactive on prioritizing good sex as a required resource of a relationship, otherwise it'll starve.

Edited March 19, 2022 by rock-cock-jock
typo

[tallslenderguy]

i think this is a great topic/question hntnhole.  i think a lot of 'relationship'  or ideas of relationship, gets based on the dominant cultural model/s we were raised with, and a lot of those ideas are not even conscious. For instance i was married (to a woman) for much of my life and when it ended she got everything material. i'd been the source of income our whole relationship, so her expectation, and that of the courts, was that i had to support her the rest of her life. i didn't want to stay attached or obligated, so she got a sizable estate that represented a lifetime of work for me.  As a result, i will never marry again or get myself in a position of being the sole support in a relationship. i don't think a person who cannot support their self is relationship ready.  

So i guess the first things i bring to,  and look for, in relationship is both an attitude and ability of self responsibility.  i'm not one who believes in the notion that two halves make a whole when it comes to a romantic tangle, but that two whole people can make something different together. 

i also believe compatibility is often overlooked in traditional relationship. i think nature teaches us that opposites attract and bond. i know myself and know how to articulate and be transparent. That's something i look for in relationship, both giving and receiving. i cannot have a relationship with someone where i have to 'pull teeth.'  Sex is important to me, and i think it is to most guys, so i think it's foolish to not lay it on the table upfront when it comes to considering relationship. Even in hook ups, i think it's sort of crazy how some guys are not upfront about what they want/need, but suggest just getting together and seeing what happens?  To me, that can be a big waste of time and energy. i know i'm a total bottom, so i know from the start that a romantic relationship of any sort will not work with another bottom.  For longevity where i'm involved, i'd look for a Total Top/total bottom dynamic. 

As a bottom, i bring sexual availability to the table. For me an ideal romantic tangle would be us living nearby each other, like a couple of houses apart even, walking distance. We each have our own space, but there is easy access.  One of the things i like about a Total Top/total bottom dynamic is the energy is more clear cut. i don't ever have to worry about his ass and He never has to worry about my penis. But i'm familiar with the kind of Top energy i would want in a relationship. The Tops i am drawn too are more dom in nature, like to be in charge, have a creative energy, the need/desire to penetrate, inseminate, impregnate, sort of possess another, etc.,.. and to me that disposition permeates most of their person, not just sexually, though that's a big component. On my side, i bring availability/accessability. my bottom nature is also somewhat sub and corresponds to His. I.e., my needs/desires are to be a receptacle, be inseminated, impregnated, sort of possessed, etc..  So, if He wakes up in the middle of the night with a hard on and need to breed, i am perfectly happy for Him to just slide in, even if i am sleeping. But if He does that, He gets what He gets lol, it's not like He wakes me and i go douche at 3 in the morning, there is a mutuality about the energy. 

i had a friend like this when i was in nursing school. It didn't involve sex, because the friend was a woman, but we lived a couple of houses apart and we'd walk over and share a watermelon, or spontaneously go to a movie or dinner, or just talk on the front porch.  With a Guy, i could see something similar, with sex added into the relationship. 

 

[hntnhole]

7 hours ago, rock-cock-jock said:

That's how it is for straight relationships and that's how it should be for any other sexuality.

Thanks, rock-cock-jock, for the commentary. However, I disagree. 

Unfortunately, that's simply not the case fo "any other sexuality" in many cases.  For instance: Christmas was the important get-together for my family and my Aunt Bitch's family, Being 1st generation Americans, the traditions of the homeland - especially certain foods - was important.  In later years, as an adult living in Chicago with my life-partner, I could easily drive over to one ethnic neighborhood on Clark St, and buy all the special Christmas delicacies, and then drive about an hour out to the Western Burbs (where the alluded to dread Aunt Bitch lived - who always hosted at Christmas), and deliver a substantial amount - basically the entire traditional Christmas Eve dinner for 10 sometime during Christmas week. 

I was always invited, but my life partner never was.  He was never even alluded to.  I found that to be as blunt a rejection of who I am as a slap in the face, particularly since cousins had come to our home in the city any number of times.  That wretched Cunt, not merely two-faced, but 4 faced, with as many chins to match never replied, when I wondered aloud if my life-partner might be invited, nor did her miserable husband (a pastor, no less).  The cousins did ask why I and my partner were never invited, I later found out, and the reply was something like "he's chosen a bad life", or words to that effect.  When I finally, after 5,6, years of performing this annual task, and decided I had other things to do, they all wondered where I was this time.  Fuck 'em.  Let then eat whatever they can scrape up.  Why on earth would I ask my life-partner/lover to subject himself to such treatment?  

So, NO.  That kind of "family" does not deserve the Honor of my lover's presence, his grace, his caring, his intelligence and depth.  

7 hours ago, rock-cock-jock said:

interchange of pheromones and oxytocin

I first heard of this kind of attraction years after we were together, and I think it must be true.  I didn't then, and don't really know now either exactly why, but there was just something about him that made me smile, just being around him.  At home, at the offices we shared, walking down the street, whatever.  He was just exciting.  That hole has crusted over with time, but it's still there; I miss him.  

[hntnhole]

6 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

 i think a lot of 'relationship'  or ideas of relationship, gets based on the dominant cultural model/s we were raised with, and a lot of those ideas are not even conscious.

That is exactly where I lay the blame as well.  Men like us simply don't fit the "mold" for others, especially when they're infused with the phoney, anti-human bs foisted upon those who don't fit the mold.  We, as non-normative men - gay men - have been, are now, and will be rejected merely because of the fact that we are born differently.  Odd, isn't it - that unless we grow up "obviously" different, we're included ... until all of a sudden we're not. This is why we must build supportive cultural structures that reinforce us. 

But, you probably figured out that this is the reason I wrote this post in the first place, didn'tcha ... you sweet boy ....

[hntnhole]

6 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

As a result, i will never marry again or get myself in a position of being the sole support in a relationship. i don't think a person who cannot support their self is relationship ready.  

I completely agree, but without the horror you had to go through.  I did allude to this requirement for any relationship I might ever consider, among the others.  A merger of two like-minded men, each "whole" in and of himself, becoming one-half of a bigger, larger, more satisfying "Whole".  Even when there are multiple men comprising the "family unit", each one is embraced as a "whole" man.  I only know about the Leather Families of years ago, but it stands to reason that several men certainly could form a "family unit" for the benefit of each. My apologies for the lack of clarity in describing this above.  

 

6 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

but suggest just getting together and seeing what happens

I'd put that down to merely a lack of self-confidence.  However, if invited to clarify, and they don't/won't, it's an eyebrow-raiser.

 

6 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

 One of the things i like about a Total Top/total bottom dynamic is the energy is more clear cut

I believe that it's easier, certainly.  The focus may be a bit shady, and still work for some guys, but - we are who we are - and clarity is always good.  Dependable, trustworthy, honest, reliable are key-words for me.  

"he gets what he gets":  LOL .... well, in our kind of lives, yeah.  If no "notice" is given, there can't be any expectation of preparedness either !!!

[tallslenderguy]

31 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

That is exactly where I lay the blame as well.  Men like us simply don't fit the "mold" for others, especially when they're infused with the phoney, anti-human bs foisted upon those who don't fit the mold.  We, as non-normative men - gay men - have been, are now, and will be rejected merely because of the fact that we are born differently.  Odd, isn't it - that unless we grow up "obviously" different, we're included ... until all of a sudden we're not. This is why we must build supportive cultural structures that reinforce us. 

Yes!!  To me, gay guys have the potential for being the most open minded and accepting of people because many of us know first hand what it means to be subjected to the closed minded, rejecting, ethnocentric "norm."  i think many us who sink into, narrow, closed minded conformity to the "norm," do so in an attempt at a semblance of acceptance, but that is just an illusion, and delusion, i think. i believe ultimately it is worse for us to reject our self than it is to suffer the rejection of normative culture.

37 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

But, you probably figured out that this is the reason I wrote this post in the first place, didn'tcha ... you sweet boy ....

i wonder if You realize that You penetrated and bred me with that comment?  Thank You for giving me Your sweet 'load' hntnhole. 

[hntnhole]

I may be many things .... and Proudly so ..... but born yesterday just ain't one of 'em .....

Even over the ether, it can happen ... really cool , huh?

[tallslenderguy]

20 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

I completely agree, but without the horror you had to go through.  I did allude to this requirement for any relationship I might ever consider, among the others.  A merger of two like-minded men, each "whole" in and of himself, becoming one-half of a bigger, larger, more satisfying "Whole".  Even when there are multiple men comprising the "family unit", each one is embraced as a "whole" man.  I only know about the Leather Families of years ago, but it stands to reason that several men certainly could form a "family unit" for the benefit of each. My apologies for the lack of clarity in describing this above.  

 

I'd put that down to merely a lack of self-confidence.  However, if invited to clarify, and they don't/won't, it's an eyebrow-raiser.

 

I believe that it's easier, certainly.  The focus may be a bit shady, and still work for some guys, but - we are who we are - and clarity is always good.  Dependable, trustworthy, honest, reliable are key-words for me.  

"he gets what he gets":  LOL .... well, in our kind of lives, yeah.  If no "notice" is given, there can't be any expectation of preparedness either !!!

Nothing i wrote was intended as a criticism of anything You wrote, i'm sorry if i came off that way. i think our feelings and views aline and i always enjoy You and Your contributions, i love who and how You are, and that You purposefully post comments to build, add girth and substance to our culture.

Your allusion to polyamory is also a fit for me. To me, the best relationship is compatible and symbiotic. The normative notion that one person can provide all of that for another, or somehow two people can provide everything the other needs, seems to defy the odds at best lol. i think one of the primary reasons half of all marriages end in divorce is the unreasonable expectations the normative formula for relationship places on people. To me, it sinks into the "quid-pro-quo" dynamic that i have mentioned elsewhere, where the relationship devolves into a costly (and ultimately unsustainable) trade off of constant sacrifice.  Where poly makes sense to me is, poly relationship dynamic can succeed when there is understanding and acceptance that we can get our needs met in a way where it's not sacrificial, but symbiotic when we are not trying to get something from just one person, who may not have what we need. 

Your standards of: "dependable, trustworthy, reliable, honest?"  To me those are synonymous. i think the lies, lack of reliability, untrustworthiness, undependability, can often be traced to incompatibility and trying to provide what one cannot. Guys who are getting everything they need at home, don't cheat, so maybe we need to rethink and build a different kind of home?

[hntnhole]

4 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Guys who are getting everything they need at home, don't cheat, so maybe we need to rethink and build a different kind of home?

Wellllll ... there are guys that enjoy "cheating"*, merely for the sake of doing it.  Some are even really hot guys.  I'm no shrink - but I have to specify again that these are only statements that apply to me, and if other guys can benefit from reading them, great.  If not, ok.  It's the sharing of perceptions that I enjoy so much on BZ, and was the impetus for this thread in the first place.

That said, if you mean gay men in general need to think carefully about what they not only want, but what they can offer, I completely agree.  When we love another man, it's a pleasure to give as well as receive in the relationship.  When you have some time, I'm wondering what's in your mind related to "build a different kind of home".  There may be more than one weasel in that woodwork !!!

*again, that term may need a more clear definition as it relates to gay men 

[tallslenderguy]

10 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Wellllll ... there are guys that enjoy "cheating"*, merely for the sake of doing it.  Some are even really hot guys.  I'm no shrink - but I have to specify again that these are only statements that apply to me, and if other guys can benefit from reading them, great.  If not, ok.  It's the sharing of perceptions that I enjoy so much on BZ, and was the impetus for this thread in the first place.

That said, if you mean gay men in general need to think carefully about what they not only want, but what they can offer, I completely agree.  When we love another man, it's a pleasure to give as well as receive in the relationship.  When you have some time, I'm wondering what's in your mind related to "build a different kind of home".  There may be more than one weasel in that woodwork !!!

*again, that term may need a more clear definition as it relates to gay men 

lol, as soon as i wrote that about cheating i thought: "nah,"  but decided to throw it out there. i do think the reasons for cheating can get complex, and i'm no shrink either. i hated myself when i was cheating, but i am not a universal standard. 

Re "different home."  Home is where the cock is? or Home is where the ass is? (depending on one's proclivity).  In that vein, there should be no homeless Men/men and the different kind of homes can be limitless. If my Man is free to fuck whomever He needs or wants, it isn't cheating and He is at home wherever His cock is, and i like being part of His happy home. 

edit:  i guess i should qualify that, to me, "cheating" involves hiding and lying, and that's the part i hate/d. i wanna be true to myself and others. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by tallslenderguy