Sebastyne - blog home

Sebastyne

A rock fan. A thinker. A psychic empath and a channel, a Tarot reader. A single polyandrist looking; The lover of men, kings, and gods. An eternal romance analyzer.  A romantic pervert. Generation X Rebel. A psycho-spiritual life coach.

Relationship priorities, how our priorities change the way we connect

"If you are not HERE, I do not want you at all."

Although helpful on it’s own, this post relates to the profile fields under ‘priorities’. The profiling functions can be found under the navigation label ‘you’, for registered users.

Trust me, everyone here has a valid point, but when these opinions collide, a relationship is going to become impossible to keep healthy. Some clashes are inevitable, for instance, when family members have a different value system, but when it comes to new relationships, your ideal should match each other, so you can keep a unified front on this.

Opinion. Romantic relationship(s) come(s) first

The way these people feel, is that people are hard-wired and meant to seek romantic/sexual love as their primary relationship, and all other relationships come second to that. The lover is the most important person, their happiness comes first, and, as a service to their children, they help and support their child in their wish to find romantic sexual love connection of their own, without tying them too tightly to their parents or family. They will always have friends and family around, but only as their second relationships, while they, themselves are the unit they uphold at all times. The love that lasts forever is bound between two of this kind of thinkers.

This type of a person is highly sexual in their approach to relationships, and all of their relationships, ideally, their family relationships as well, tend to serve one purpose only; getting them laid! (Joking, just a tad! Becomes difficult, when the family member is a primary parent-child thinker, who thinks that “by getting my kid laid, I’ll maintain my primary role in their life”, while the child sees the romantic partner the primary relationship, and the parent the secondary.)

They are always seeking to make their romantic partner into the “first, and most important, perhaps the only family member they need”.

Opinion. Family first

Another very popular view is that blood is thicker than water, and that family ties are stronger than the bond between non-related lovers. They wish for the spouses of their children to join the family, with or without their own family, and they do not believe in serving two kings so to speak, if a marriage bond should be made, it should include both families, or the new wife or husband should make their own family the secondary, when joining their new family through marriage.

The people in this category MAY find happiness in the romance thinkers if they simply learn to view their spouse as a real family member and create a deep connection to him or her.

Opinion. Mother/Father and child bond is sacred

This thinker type is the type that causes the first type thinkers the most gray hairs. In this type of a thinker, the mother wishes to bond with their child so tightly, that the child will always have trouble marrying or maintaining other relationships, as they will always return back to their mother and be tied to her for life. Although some children love it, or even crave it, and are proud of being the mother’s primary child, to some, this is a nightmare.

Another variation is the bond between the mother and all of her children, and father and his chosen child, and father and all of his children. Clearly, currently, we live in a more matriarchal society, in which the mother-child bond is regarded sacred, while previously, it was the father-child bond that mattered, but there are still people who believe in the rights of the father over the rights of the mother, and justifiably so, neither is more sacred than the other based on any logical reason, only through personal, emotional preference and cultural views and habits.

Opinion. My best friend / Friends come(s) first

This type of a thinker will, for instance, prioritize their best friend over their spouse or family members. Very dangerous for someone who wishes to prioritize their spouse, once they find one. Unfortunately, these relationships are most often created in teen years, where as the spouses are often found later in life. These people are often parodied in comedies, in which a creepy high school friend turns up again after years of separation, expecting to pick up the relationship where it left off, and in which the cool old friend is either finally turned over to the love offered or manages to reject this crazy intruder for good. In real life, this is very much the question: Are you going to accept your best friend as your primary partner in life, or are you going to reject the friendship for good? What about this: are you going to accept a friend who views you as the second in order of importance, or are you going to find the connection you need elsewhere?

Opinion. Community first

People who think this see themselves as a community member before anything else. This may be their village, their county, their country, in some cases, their company, their religious organization, or other community, or their family, but the family has a slightly different flavor to it so it has been listed as a separate category. These people believe that everyone should pull together, survive as a group, in unity, there is power and all of the like. They have a bad habit of trying to force other people into their own way of thinking, considering the fact they view everyone as a member of something based on where they were born, not how they feel about it. These people would be happiest in a community, where the rules are “conform or leave”, and that would be the healthier option if the stigma and force would be removed, compared to the endless attempt to make the non-compliant comply, like in most modern communities. (The reason why this happens is because people who prioritize their other relationships do not see compliance with communal rules as important, and cannot understand why anyone should be cast away from the people they love simply for not following all the communal rules… However, to people to whom the community is the priority, the rules are sacred.)

Opinion. Siblings first

This opinion is more a happenstance than an ideal people hold, but if you prioritize your siblings over anyone else, they could be likened to the prioritization of your partners best friend, for instance. The important part is that you and your partner understand the vital importance of someone else in the relationship, and in your case, that someone else happens to be your sibling.

How to understand others?

It is often easier to understand others point of view when you consider your own. I, for instance, do not want a boyfriend or a husband who would not see me as his first priority. I wouldn’t even think about having a relationship with a man who would see his best friend more important than I – equal is fine, but not a priority. It would feel weird to have a man tell me he’ll go have beers with friends as if this was his day off from me, right? To some people, this is more than the expectation, because their priorities are different; you have your friends, I have mine, and our friends are more quite naturally more important to both of us than each other, because we have known these people for longer… or because they are of the same gender or some other reason. I, personally, would drop that guy like a hot potato, if he viewed me as some kind of a necessary evil (that’s how I’d feel) in comparison to his god-like friends. And, again, I love men, and I love hanging out with men, and I love my men having close friends, but he needs to share them with me, and me with them, just as a personal note to not confuse any potential perfect stalkers I might find down the line… 😉 )

And again, to further explain this; my mother sees the bond between the mother and her children as the sacred one that should supersede all others. I, as the romantic prioritizer, have tried to make her accept a secondary role in my life, someone who supports my seeking of love elsewhere, but she sees my lovers and friends as her direct rivals. She cannot comprehend my need to keep her on the secondary seat, which, to my father, who is a romance seeker, always made perfect sense; “the day will come when I’ll have to give up my priority role in your life to your spouse.” Up to that moment, he had the permission to love me as his first love, (considering he chose a spouse who didn’t prioritize him but her children,) but he understands quite naturally that once a child grows up, their primary love is their romantic partner, not their parent. Clearly, not all children feel this way and they’ll always love their parents more than their spouses, but my father and I simply happened to be in the same value category.

Conflicts occur when we are trying to force people into the role we need them in

We ALL do this particularly with family members because we cannot get a new biological mother or a father, and we cannot undo having birthed a child. We are trying to force the people in our lives to obey our own order of priorities. We ALL do this to some extent. The ONLY way to stop doing this is to accept that some relationships are not meant to be and that there is NOTHING WRONG with people who prioritize things differently, you simply have to let go of them or accept their priorities as valid or, in some cases, accept them as an even a higher ideal as it dawns on you how they think.

Things get confusing when someone’s priorities are within their own family, but the priority isn’t shared. How can you stop being your parent’s child? When a parent competes over the primary role with their child’s lovers and friends quite brutally, believing that they have failed as a parent if their child loves someone else more than they love their parent – when someone has had a child for the emotional reassurance that they will always be their number one person and they will never be alone again… This causes an undue stress on the relationship if that child is not in the same thinker category. Spiritually speaking, a parent-child prioritizes who are in the same category will most likely create a lover-bond for their future incarnations, but that is alright as long as they both are excited about this prospect. However, children must be protected from this by making it clear that parents should not feel as if it was their DUTY as a good parent to be the most important person in their child’s life and vice versa.

The child is the first priority conflict with romantic lover prioritizers

I think a word about this is in order, as in every other context it sort of makes sense the child is the first priority, even though sometimes parents still prioritize the community or family over their child, without thinking about it. “You exist to serve the community.” “You are a member of this family, therefore you do whatever this family asks you to do.”

The romantic love prioritizers often find it difficult to accept this wish in themselves, because they DO want, just like everyone else, that their child is superbly happy in every way, and it sounds downright sinful to prioritize your lover over your child. This is the way they think: “I want you to be perfectly happy, my child, but I want you to find someone who loves you more than I do, and I want you to find someone who loves you more than I do, and I know it is possible, because you are exquisite, and the only thing I cannot give to you is the sexual love that you are entitled to, and that is the area where your lover will be able to love you more than I do.”

On a spiritual note, the spirit does not ask questions about biology. Sometimes, in this group, the romantic, sexual lover is the parent, and this causes a bit of a conflict one way or the other. In some cases, a spirit in love with the parent may kill their bodies in order to be born as the child of the person they cannot get close enough to, in order to be their first romantic priority as their child. This is the only group of people where the boundaries get blurred both ways, and who might welcome an incestuous relationship, both ways… However, a “you exist for your parent” -thinker may rape their child, because they view them as their own possession and servant, where as the romantic thinker does not… Then again, if the child belongs in the same group of thinkers, they may not suffer about this intrusion as much as we’d assume they would. I will, at some stage, write more about pedophilia and incest in this context, but I feel I need to give you a bit more background before I go there, as it is a sensitive subject, and I would never want to cause or been seen to okay causing a sexual trauma on anyone, if I would be misunderstood.

 

Read More
« «
» »



Leave a Reply

Be the First to Post!

avatar

 

Read By Keyword:

 

Search

Sebastyne Personal Logo (green and red variation)