Needed vs. Needy

Let me guess .. you wrote this for David :)

I know exactly what you mean, Duck. It is wonderful to feel needed, but horrible, not to mention exhausting, to feel like you are solely responsible for someone else's happiness. Those 'needy" people generally have incredibly low self esteem, and need constant reassurance that you will indeed be there tomorrow. No one needs that kind of friend, lover etc...Nothing drives away another person quicker than neediness.

Yes Lynn, for my friend David. But it really made me think about my own relationships too.

My ideal relationship is one in which neither of us need the other for any reason, but we want each other for many reasons.

After years of trial and error, I have learned that nor one else can make me happy. I must learn to be happy with who I am. Also through that trial and error phase I learned I am not responsible for anyone else's happiness either. They must first learn to love themselves. We can be happy together but we can't fix the things that are broken with the other. Once I finally learned and accepted this and learned to love myself and allow my husband the freedom to be who he is, life sure got alot easier! :-)

Such an interesting posting and such wonderful responses! Well thought, well written and most insightful, especially with the caveat (not at the end of the article, but) in your response to Lynn. Seeing our own relationships and wondering as to how we approach them is the first step toward working to improve them! Defining needs, wants and self-sufficiancies is tough, but looking at ourselves in a non-judgemental way helps us to separate them and understand what makes us tick. A nice, thought provoking article! Thank you for your insights and thoughts!

After having thought about this all day long, I'm with Sandy, I think. The word "need" creeps me out, in the context of human relationships. But then again, some of the things I want out of life could easily be seen as needs, so I'm probably just delusional, as usual :-)

Webduck.. good point .... considering one's own relationships in this light IS revealing. I learned something similar to this from friends of mine a few years ago when I was in a less-than-healthy phase. I've always wanted and needed to be competent and self-sufficient. Because of that, I don't think to ask for help. Friends of mine quite pointedly said: "But that is what WE are here for .. and if you don't allow us to help you, then we feel like you don't value us." Now THAT was an eye-opener for me; I had never considered that my need for self-sufficiency could be perceived as denying others a sense of being respected and valued. I am slowly learning to allow others to help even when I do not really think I need it. And I have to admit, they do seem to be happier when I do.

I guess what I'm learning is that "being needed" and "needing" don't have to be perpetual or chronic conditions; they can be short-term events and people are just as happy. They just need to feel that they are doing "something" positive to make a friend/lover/partner/spouse/family member happier or safer somehow.

Good article; very thought provoking. Thank you :)

I think you covered it well and are right on the subject

Thank you all very much for the positive feedback. I really appreciate it.

Lynn -- That's an interesting series of thoughts you have there. I really believe that we can make people in our lives feel loved, appreciated, respected, and valued without there being a dynamic of need. I'm sure it's partly my own past and personal wiring that make me shy away from that word so strongly, but . . . I think it's a mistake to need any one particular person. I think it's the human condition to need help and guidance, and that the people around me are there to provide those things, just as I am there to provide it for other people. But the "need" aspect of any one single relationship is deeply troubling to me, because people, as individuals, are not reliable. Even if they want to be, they're not. So someone who needs another person, another specific person, is, I think, on the path to a great deal of pain. I see this, for whatever reason, as different from embracing the general need inherent to human nature. I think it's far better to have one's needs met by a variety of people, like a plant pulling nutrients from the soil.

thanks for sharing

I think the fear of seeming "needy," or of being disappointed, is what often stands in the way of true intimacy. There is nothing more intimate than allowing yourself to need someone. Allowing yourself to need is to allow yourself to be vulnerable, which is very difficult for me, and a topic I have written about on Gather. If you never need anyone, you may find yourself alone - even in a relationship.

David and Renie, yes, one thing that is very hard for me to handle is the fear of being dependent, and then "what happens if...". If that person is not there on the day I need them, if that person dies, if that person simply doesn't come through...

It's tough trying to balance fear against anything because fear is so controlling. So far, the only method I've found that works for me is to have a "plan b", which is back to self reliance. Essentially I'm saying to myself, "I'll allow them to try to be there, and if they are, fine. If they are not, then I can always go back to handling it myself."

David, I do like your metaphor of pulling nutrients from the soil... good image to carry. Merci :)

Renie -- It's probably just me . . . but I don't see how it can ever be emotionally healthy to need another person. I guess I don't think that love is the same thing as need, or that being open is the same thing as need. It seems to be very unfair to the other person to display or feel that kind of need . . . but perhaps I don't understand the kind of need you are speaking of, and am using an inappropriate internal referent.

David, it seems like you consider "need" to be an all or nothing proposition and I don't think it has to be. I agree that there can and should be many avenues for having one's needs met - through romantic relationships, family, friendships, and work colleagues. Each of these relationships offers its own form of intimacy, if you allow it.

Lynn, I am very much the same way. Only I have the tendency to get very angry when I do allow myself to need someone and then they let me down. I am ashamed to say that I have used my self-reliance as a weapon more than once in my life.

Renie .. we all make mistakes in relationships. All you can do is try to learn from it, not make the same mistake again, and forgive yourself for being human. Fear and anger move us to do things not in our best interest sometimes; all you can do is learn and move on.

too true. excellent and succint definitions!

I think relationships are a crap shoot. That's why you have to work at them. I can see why someone who has been hurt would not want to be needed, or need anyone else, because they don't want to be hurt again. No one does. You take chances, and make mistakes. Hopefully, not big ones, but that happens too.

Being married for 36 years doesn't make me an authority, just a veteran. And, it isn't just marriage, but in any relationship where you take emotional chances. I have had friendships wax and wane. No doubt, I have pissed off more than my share of people. I know which ones need me in their lives though, and it is by degrees for each one.

My son needed me when he was little. Now, he only needs me now and then. But, he always needs me emotionally to be there as someone he can count on.

OK, everyone with a perfect relationship, raise your hand. ;-)

RE: My ideal relationship is one in which neither of us need the other for any reason, but we want each other for many reasons.

Well said Sandy.

My relationship is great because neither me nor my girlfriend truly need one another. We really don't even want to be with each other.

Come to think of it -- we can't even stand each other.

Web -- And what will your son do when (God forbid) you are no longer here to grace his life?

Perhaps part of my problem is that I am defining "need" too literally. Or perhaps the issue is that many people do not define it literally enough. To me, a need is something I literally cannot do without or I will not survive. Food, water, air, shelter. There are less-tangible things that are needs for me as well: solitude, for example . . . if I don't get it, my mental and emotional health decline precariously. We all need knowledge, and our need for it, and the type we need, varies throughout our lives depending upon our circumstances.

As you may remember, Web, I am very close to my mother. She's my absolute best friend in the world. I don't know how much longer I will have her in my life; she's 60, and while that's not "old" per se, it would be foolish to deny that time is running out. If I need her . . . where does that leave me? In fact, about ten years ago, I realized that I did need her, and always had, and that I had better restructure my life to reduce or eliminate that need, or I will be in terrible, terrible trouble when she dies. I would like to spend the time we have left in loving her, cherishing her, valuing her, and enjoying her company . . . but not needing her. When I need someone for emotional support, she is there, and she is usually the first person I turn to, because she knows me better than anyone else. But she isn't the only person I could turn to, and I am making a deliberate effort to trust other friends, because I don't think that need of one person is ever healthy, even when it seems "natural," as in the relationships of parents and children. It is normal for a young child to need a parent -- but I don't think that's supposed to continue.

My mother does need me, in a way that is not healthy for either of us. She hates my father, to whom she has been married for forty years, and with whom she has suffered the classic emotional devastations of a woman married to an alcoholic. She has few friends. I am the center of her emotional world. This is a burden I shouldn't have to carry.

I'm going to say something that I think will strike many people as horribly offensive. I feel that people who regard need as necessary or as healthy in a relationship have probably been exposed -- either long-term, or when their emotional development was impressionable -- to a codependent relationship, and so they feel that bonds of need are normal and healthy.

Personally, I think it takes far more vulnerability to truly want another person than it does to need that person. There is virtually no control implied in wanting, whether that desire is physical, emotional, intellectual, or spiritual. There is control in need.

I realize that my last sentence wasn't exactly clear . . . I meant that someone who needs has a degree of control over the person who is needed. If you doubt me, consider the implications of these two statements:

1) I want you to help me.

2) I need you to help me.

The second would be far more difficult to refuse, wouldn't it? The reasons for it being more difficult pretty much summarize why I think it's not a healthy dynamic in an emotionally intimate relationship.

David, provocative question for you: by acknowledging that you 'needed' your mom, and making a conscious decision to develop other relationships in anticipation of the day she would no longer be available to you, are you saying that you have no "need" in your life or that you DO have "need" and are spreading out the risk so that the loss of one will not overpower you?

Not all of us have experienced co-dependent relationships in our lives. I have not, so I am not really familiar with the concept you are suggesting. To me, "need" is "healthy and normal", but should not be confused with "needy", which is not. I don't know that there is "control" in "need"; I may be missing something there or your experience with the concept of need may be different from mine. I'm beginning to suspect it's the latter given your reference to having an alcoholic parent.

As to the choice you offer between "I want" and "I need", yes the 2nd would be harder to refuse, but not because I feel controlled. It's because the former is, in my lexicon, "take it or leave it" and the 2nd is, "you are important to me".

Interesting discussion... very interesting how perspectives on this are colored by family experiences. I do enjoy this .. it's making me delve into meanings of these concepts that are very new to me.

David- It is a fact that I am going to die someday. I accept it, but I have only mentally come to do so since 2001 when my own mother died. My dad died in 1996, but I had a much different relationship with him than with my mother. My mom was my best friend, but I also respected her as my mother. I had always needed my mom for support, and to sometimes tell me that I was full of crap. When I came to realize that her health was declining, I had already been years into preparing myself for the day that she would no longer physically be with me. I have always believed that as you raise your kids you sloooooowly let out the apron strings so that when you are gone and the ties between you are severed, you have sent them on their way so that they can make it on their own. The morning my mom died I remember thinking that she had "decided" that she had done as much as she could with and for me, and that I would be ok on my own now. Her voice is still in my mind and I feel she is with me every day, in every thing I do. She wasn't the perfect mother, but she tried. So, to answer your question about my own son, he will feel that stab of hurt when I die, but I know too that he will remember the person I was, and that I did the best for him that I could while I was in his life so that even when I am gone I will still be with him.

My brother might be a better one to answer this. He was the one who bore the brunt of my mom needing him and his wife. Mom didn't drive, and she was legally blind. She was very lonely after my dad died and even though they had not always had a healthy relationship, they loved each other. As my mom's health (she had COPD) made each day more scary, she did become needy. She needed to get her mind off her breathing difficulties, but she was also used to being alone much of her life and so even in her 'neediness' it was when she was left with no alternative.

I guess life isn't fair, and some of us do end up in relationships where we are needed too much. Maybe it is a test of our love for that person. Should love be conditional?

It really is an interesting discussion, and illuminates, I think, why people have such trouble in relationships . . . how many people actually sit down with each other and define these terms, and explain what things mean? Clearly, two people can have vastly differing definitions of what something as simple as "need" means. It's kind of scary, really. If someone with your definition were to tell me I am needed, you would mean it as a very sincere and intimate compliment, and I would take it as a red-flag signal threat. I think these differences of definition are prolific, and that very hurtful misunderstandings often occur because of them. That's not really on-topic, but I keep thinking about it as this thread progresses.

Anyway. It's difficult for me to articulate what the control difference is, for me, between "I want" and "I need" . . . but I'll try. To me, "I want" is a more pure emotion, whereas "I need" has strings attached. To me, "I need" has an unattractive element of self-interest. I see need as a less evolved emotion, in a lot of ways . . . if you want someone even though you don't need that person, that seems to me a far greater compliment and stronger feeling than need. To me, except in the context of a growing child's necessarily dependent emotional needs, there is nothing positive about the word "need" in an adult emotional context. I think of this as different from practical needs. For example, today I need someone with a ladder to help me change a smoke alarm battery, because I don't have a ladder and even if I did, my balance is so poor that I would probably fall off it and kill myself. Although I have a need of another person, it's a different kind of need -- a practical need.

Regarding codependent relationships: This isn't directed at you in any sense -- you're clearly a very emotionally evolved person, and I have no doubt that you know whether you have a healthy relationship. But a lot of people really can't tell. They don't know that the relationships they have observed are unhealthy, and that they are in one themselves. Codependency is not solely an alcoholics' phenomenon, though that seems to be the population that has defined it most clearly.

As for your question about my mother -- yes, of course I have emotional needs . . . I wouldn't be human if I didn't. I think, though, that many people have a tendency to seek to have most if not all of their emotional needs met by one person, and I don't think that's healthy. I also think that if we were all really emotionally healthy, we wouldn't have those needs. Some people do not -- very spiritually evolved people do not evince a great deal of emotional need for other people. They seem to find what they need from themselves, or from a non-human-interactive source.

Whoops, we cross-posted . . . that long comment was in answer to Lynn, not to you, Web.

Ideally, of course love shouldn't be conditional. It also shouldn't suck the life out of you, either, though.

I agree with that last sentence David. Which is why I think I would be better off living alone. :)

David, I agree completely that it is this kind of difference in definition that underlies so many relationship problems. Had this thread never been started, I would not ever have thought to consider that "need" could be perceived negatively. Indeed as you note, to me, it's the ultimate compliment. I'm learning from you that could be a potential roadblock and this is helpful and enlightening.

I understand (I think!) the difference you cite between want and need, and I'm beginning to understand why you find "need" to be unnerving. So in light of that, I'm going to illustrate an episode of "need" that occurred in my life a couple years ago, and I would ask that you tell me how you perceive it.. to me it was a "need" situation, but I'm wondering if you might see it as a "want".

A friend of mine (since college days, several decades back) called one night clearly upset. Her oldest brother (50) had collapsed at a restaurant and was now in the ER at a local hospital. The diagnosis was brain aneurysm, and they did not expect that he would live, but nonetheless put him on life support until further testing could be completed. I do not have medical training, but did grow up in a family of medical professionals (pharmacists, doctors) so I'm generally more comfortable with "medical shop talk" and more familiar with medical tests and practices than my background would suggest. So my friend said to me, " I need you to explain this. I need you to help keep me calm. I need you .... "... and trailed off. Over the next 2 days, she called periodically, mostly for emotional reassurance. Other members of her family were there, but she needed me to steady her. (I should add.. we're about 1200 miles apart.. being there physically was not an option.)
Mark was taken off life support at the end of the 2nd day (indeed he was brain dead) and died a couple hours later. Throughout the next week as the family got through the funeral, we spent a lot more time just talking.

To this day, she is apt to tell me that she really needed me to be there to get her through it all, and still regards that as a time when I served that role as "rock" in her life. Clearly, she also wanted me to be there. But more than that, she needed me to be there. She needed me.

From my perspective, I cannot think of a higher compliment than to be regarded as someone to turn to when help and support is needed. In my view, that's a compliment of trust, a statement that she knows it's safe to be vulnerable with me and that she knows I will help in any way I am able to to get her through whatever the crisis is.

It doesn't have to be a life and death situation to be needed. It can just be day to day living that means that you fill in the gaps in someone else's life in a way that enables both of you to function better and more happily.

Now I would agree that someone who NEVER seems to make their own decisions and wants someone else there to pick up the pieces every day is NEEDY, and that is a bad thing.

As for spiritual people.. perhaps it would be illuminating to pose this question to someone you regard as being in that state and see what they tell you. Given that we have such different perceptions of "need", perhaps they have yet another view?

Webduck... I had the same experience when my mom died. I, too, was close to my mom, and did have time to "separate" some before she passed away. It's tough to lose a parent you love. And you do go on. As for maybe being needed too much and perhaps being better off alone... is it too late to make changes that could maybe result in being less leaned on?

I am the one who probably needs someone too much, not the other person. It is the other person who is leaned on.

Ah.. so it's a question of disengagement without making the "leanee" feel unwanted and unneeded? Tricky, but perhaps do-able if you asked (should you desire to) to be taught to do whatever it is you are leaning on this person for.... food for thought.

There many kinds of need, and trouble when ones you love interpret need differently. I needed my husband as a person I knew would always be on my side no matter what. If I were wrong he would tell me in a loving way. I wanted a buddy more than a lover or provider. He was reluctant to let me provide help in his needs, especially when he became ill before he died. He looked at it as a failure in himself. It made me feel that I was worthless to him. I interpret need between a man and wife as a confirmation of love.

This is absolutely one of the most interesting conversations I've had on the Internet.

Lynn -- I do perceive the situation you described as a "need" situation, but I see it primarily as a "practical need" . . . you had knowledge and beneficial experience that your friend did not have.

Melinda -- I don't think we're supposed to be there for our parents, or for anyone, at the expense of our own sanity and emotional health. In plain print, that looks incredibly unfeeling, but I don't mean it to . . . I don't think that we are meant to sacrifice our own lives for others who have not made proper provision for themselves. Of course there are things such as devastating illness that are outside of people's control; that's not what I'm referring to. But my mother, for example . . . as much as I love her, she did have choices, and she made some very poor choices. She chose to stay with my father rather than face life as a single mother, because she feared poverty. She has chosen to stay with him even now for financial reasons. The marriage is so draining, so demoralizing, so awful, that she does not have the emotional energy left to make friends, to have an emotional life outside of me, as her child.

I don't think that's my responsibility, even if she does need me. Oh man, I sound like such a shit.

In my current situation, we both need each other for different reasons, but we also want each other. That, to me, is a perfect situation.

A note to guys, my experience shows that a "needy" guy becomes clingy, which is a big turn-off to most women.

This is standard accepted opinion in the field of human psychology. Humans generally require 4 basic needs to live a healthy life. They are.

1. To live
2. To love and feel loved
3. To feel important
4. Variety

Perhaps needing a person is simply a way for someone for fulfill the more basic need to feel loved, love, or to feel important. These are human needs. As we all know, babies who have been neglected of love and human touch in early stages have actually died from that lack of contact.

So... does one neccessarily "need" another specific person? Perhaps not. But one does have basic human emotional needs. The person that is needed may simply be a vehicle for fulfillment.

But once one is an adult, do numbers 2 and 3 necessarily have to involve other people? I sure do seem to see a lot of literature suggesting that the ideal person is emotionally self-sustaining, and doesn't need anyone else to in order to feel loved, valuled, or fulfilled . . . that other people should be the icing on a basically-complete cake.

Oops. I typed too quickly. Please forgive the grammatical and spelling errors above. :)

It would seem ideal, but evolution suggests otherwise. In fact, the only way our fragile human bodies could compete with nature and other predatory animals was to band together, in social groups, to protect and provide for eachother.

Might it be suggested that we're past that, on the evolutionary path?

This would suggest that humans have developed an innate biological need for eachother.

I admire the thoughts of Renie 623...I do think it is an expression of trust for someone to allow themselves to need you, and for you to allow yourself to need them. People serve each others' dynamic in different ways at different times. Sometimes we need someone to take care of. Sometimes that same person can suck the air out of a room and be toxic as all-get-out.

David, think what you felt the first time one of your babies came and sat in your lap to sleep. Think what it would be like to do without them. You need, even if you try not to. I don't think we can help it, I think it's the human condition. The difference is that if we grow up, we learn to let others need us also, and try to stand up for them.

Your mother will never leave you. Her voice will always be there in your head to guide you--she won't fail your need. I promise.

What is the purpose of emotion, dreams, ideas and personal accomplishments if we can not share them with others? If a person completely lacks all personal contact with other humans, how can they take pleasure in any facet of their lives beyond physical pleasure and comfort? Even the fact that you have a desire to share your ideas on this topic, in this forum, suggests the need to share your thoughts in order to learn from others and validate your own ideas and self worth through human interaction.

David, I think your mother's "need" of you has shaped and colored your reaction to "need" across the board. What you describe of her relationship to you is "needy".. which is very very different. Since this has been your reality your whole life, I can well understand why you recoil from anything that looks or sounds like it might go down that path.

I understand, too, what you refer to when you suggest that there is a body of literature that idealizes the "self" and the ability to be self-sufficient (which is rather unique to the US and maybe Australia; most cultures regard that as selfish (which opens up a whole different discussion :>).

But so much of this discussion started way back when you asked why being needed was viewed as an attractor by women, and why you are still single when you have been told that you are interesting and a good person. Each time someone has stated that "being needed" is a critical element of attraction, you cite the experience with your mother as being why you think "need" is bad. And you use language like, "I don't think we're supposed to be there for our parents, or for anyone, at the expense of our own sanity and emotional health".

Why is your assumption that "need" .. by definition... means that it's "at the expense of your sanity and emotional health"? Why does "need" have to be that extreme?

If Sally needs John to help her calm down when she's overexcited, and John needs Sally to help him focus on goals because he tends to be scattered, neither is sacrificing sanity and emotional health to "be there" for each other. These are not purely practical needs; they have huge elements of emotion and committment in them. Similarly, when I talked about the experience with my friend whose brother died, you saw that as practical need (partially correct) .. but there was a very sizeable need on her part for me to help her deal with the attendant emotions, to empathize with her, to "be there" for her. None of this required that I give up sanity or emotional health to do it.

"Being there" is precisely what we are here to do for each other. You don't have to give up your life, your sanity, your health to do it. If you operate from the assumption that you do, then it goes a long way to explaining why you are single if you do not want to be. You appear to be holding the world at arm's length, attempting to avoid being "inappropriately" commandeered again.

If you are happy being self sufficient and single this is great. But "self sufficient" pretty clearly eliminates the role of others in your life other than as guests passing through. If that is not your goal, this whole concept of "need" vs. "self sufficient" is one that would have to get revisited internally to effect a change in this element in your life.

And I would still be very interested in learning what concept of "need" you hear from people whom you regard as "spiritually evolved" as I begin to think you will hear something very different from them than what you currently expect.

David, I agree with you on the "parental need" thing. As parents we should not need our children to take care of the needs that are unfulfilled by others, such as spouses. I think that is a burden our children should not ever have to bear. If they choose to fill some of the parents' needs at times, that is their choice but the parent should not feel that it is the child's duty to fill those needs.

As a mother, I have certain things that I "need" or more correctly, that I "want." It would be very easy for me to expect my children to take care of me and fill those needs/wants. I think I have raised them to be good people, loving people, helpful people, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they would jump in and help by keeping me company when I am lonely, by doing things I need to have done around the house, and maybe by making me feel important to someone, along with some of these other wants/needs. However, it would be very wrong of me to expect, ask, demand that they do so. I have gone through great lengths to not make them feel that they have to be my surrogate spouse/companion/caretaker, etc.

So I agree with you about THAT part not being your job as far as your mother's needs. That is indeed an unfair burden to place on you. You are not a shit. You are not selfish. You are her son. NOT her companion/spouse/etc.

As far as the need v. want issue, I think it is a matter of people not having the same definition of the words. There are certain things that I need: my medication (or I really would not live very long); food; water; physical activity; intellectual stimulation, etc. Without those, I could not live, or not for very long. There are certain things I want: a companion; physical contact from another human; sexual contact (yeah, preferably by something not run on batteries); success in my writing; a certain amount of freedom from financial needs; etc. Life would be great if I had these things that I want, however I will keep on living, as I have for a long time, without them, as long as get the things I really need to live.

In a relationship, I would love to have certain things that I want, but really all that I need from a relationship is honesty and trust. If I don't have those, then there is no relationship.

Lynn -- I have used my mother as an example a couple of times in this thread, but that relationship is far from being the only one that has colored my idea of what need is or isn't, or what role it plays in relationships. I've had three significant and committed relationships (interspersed with some casual dating), and in each of them, the woman I was with expressed massive resistance to what I considered to be needs I had in the relationship. These were not, in my opinion, unreasonable things, but they seemed very unreasonable and unrealistic to the women I was with. This led me, after my last breakup, to take another look at what these needs were, and why they met with such massive resistance. One of them, as a simple example, was a need not to be teased. I am pretty easy to rile up, and I don't get over it easily. It has been impossible for any woman I've ever known to respect this need. It occurred to me that I was misidentifying the need, and that actually, the need is for me to figure out how to create my own safety and/or grounding. I don't think it's fair for me to expect someone else to meet a need that arises from my unaddressed emotional wounds.

Perhaps part of the problem is that I never seem to meet women who do not need me to sacrifice my life and my sanity for their needs. My fiancee needed me to be responsible enough for both of us, because she'd never learned any self-discipline. My latest ex, before we broke up, appeared to need me to somehow rescue her borderline-delinquent children from the influence of the father they adored. These are life-draining needs, by my definition. I don't really know anyone who doesn't seem to have life-draining needs. I have them too, but I don't intend to impose them on anyone other than myself if I can possibly help it.

My acupuncturist, who I think is probably the most spiritually evolved person I know, believes that we are here to serve symbiotically, but I don't know how he would define need, or how that plays into his concept of the way in which we're supposed to sort of raise the collective consciousness of humanity. I'll ask him when I see him again, but I don't know when that will be. But if you look at contemplative or cloistered orders . . . they're discouraged from forming close relationships with any particular person. Perhaps I am ill-informed or confused, but it does seem to me that spiritual advancement involves a certain relinquishing of need for human companionship, and turning inward for the fulfillment of emotional needs.

Whoops, I totally forgot what my point was in the above post. Sheesh. Anyway, what I was trying to get at, relating back to my article that sparked Webduck to write this article which has generated this very enlightening thread, is that although apparently it would serve me well to be vulnerable, or have needs, in the context of establishing a relationship, I keep getting feedback that the particular needs I've had aren't OK. So then I think I'd better not have them, or figure out some other way to address them, and now I'm completely confused (assuming that those of you who equate need with trust and health in a relationship are correct) about how to determine which needs would be all right, and which ones wouldn't. I'm pretty confident that the practical kinds of needs are acceptable . . . but the big ones? Thus far, it hasn't seemed appropriate to share them or even to have them. And in fact when I voiced some of them much earlier on this site, even then I was given the opinion, repeatedly, that they weren't appropriate needs and I should, um, get a life. :-)

So how does one figure out which needs are appropriate to have? I guess this is something I've never learned.

I think I'm terminally confused. All I seem to know for sure is that the people who believe in total emotional self-reliance appear to be far happier and better-adjusted than I've ever been; and those of you who believe in sharing needs also seem far happier and better-adjusted than I've ever been. Are you all just faking it???? (kind of kidding, but not entirely)

I think you have to accept your need of people while also accepting that some of them will fail you. And that you, in turn, will fail others. And that the struggle is not to not need, the struggle is to fail less, and find people who will fail less. Or who will help you to fail less while you help them to fail less.

I never said I was happy. I am self-reliant by default. Probably my curse for being able to be self-reliant.

Corina -- I wasn't actually thinking of you when I made that reference . . . I was thinking back to a far earlier post on my site, and also to conversations I've had here in real life. :-) Even if you're not happy, though, you're wonderful. At least, I think so.

I think we all struggle with finding "the right person". Those of us who have more specific issues.. health, emotional concerns, habits or professions that are out of the ordinary.. struggle more. Someone (Ibsen?) once described artistic awareness as wearing the skin inside out with nerves exposed to the air. Finding someone to live with THAT had to be a challenge.

One cannot change what one actually needs FROM a relationship, but one CAN change the "pool" of potential mates. We all tend to be attracted to certain "types" of potential mates, and sometimes we get stuck in patterns that are not the best for us. Options to change include anything from formal matchmakers, to best friends who know you well enough to be effective at selection of someone for you, to Eharmony (have known 2 couples who have met there and married, both of whom had previous miserable marriages).

I don't think there is a list of "appropriate" concerns; I suspect there is one of "typical" concerns. Given your level of awareness, you see and feel more than most people have the ability to see and feel, and that means you need someone as a partner who shares those sensibilities, because she will then also understand how to live with them comfortably. That would be my guess anyway.

Being self reliant (esp. for a female as Corina notes) is both a curse and a blessing. You do take care of yourself. But that never lessens the need for another heart with which to share the joys and challenges of life. We're not faking it.. we're probably doing just fine in the sense that we survive and even thrive. But it doesn't mean that it's preferable for everyone. Part of the "better adjusted" persona you witness is learning to turn off the fears that otherwise go unchecked. Whatever one's personal fears or foibles, one cannot "give into them" when one is on one's own the way it is possible when there is someone else in the immediate environment. As with all attributes, it is both a good and bad thing; the double edged sword.

People in convents etc. do have an emotional relationship, but it is with God, not so much other humans. Their emotional needs are not fulfilled inwardly; they are fulfilled by God. Yet another variation on the theme :)

Lynn -- Doesn't God dwell within the spirit? So wouldn't that qualify as one's needs being fulfilled "inwardly"? Anyway, the crux of what I meant was that it is possible to have emotional needs met without relying on people. :-)

Mildly amusing anecdote . . . a while ago I got a thingy from eHarmony, a free introductory offer. I was bored, so I decided to take their test. They informed me that their system is based on people falling into predictable categories, and I was one of the 10% of people they couldn't possibly help. I thought that was hilarious, and also kind of admired the company for being honest.

Oh that depends on which religion you're a fan of :) (Yes I ended that sentence with a preposition :>) Most Western religions maintain that God dwells everywhere, so under that theory, our needs could be met by aliens :)

And somehow I'm not amazed that you fall within the 10% that is not predictable :) As Garrison always says, "you are way above average" :) Well hie thee to a matchmaker then; no reliance on computers for you! Seriously.. matchmakers have a very good reputation for succeess at finding compatible mates, so it might truly be a good option if you want a new mate in your life.

The alternative is to become Dreadfully Self Sufficient, which means that you have to eat the whole pint of ice cream all by yourself :) The upside is that you get to make all the decisions. The downside is that you HAVE to make all the decisions and the 90% of the population that is predictable will regard you as "not date material" as you said earlier.

So if you truly want a serious mate, it's clear you're going to have to find someone in the same 10% as you are. I'd go with the matchmaker.

So what do I do if I don't really want a serious mate and I'm OK with eating all the ice cream, but I don't want to be celibate for the rest of my life?

Oh -- and where in this modern world does one find a matchmaker?

I found this whole page interesting. Article and comments alike.

Here's my take, for whatever it's worth.

I did not want to be needed, and for years did not want to admit that I could need someone.

I can absolutely say that I do need my husband in order to be happy. Will I survive if he's no longer here, absolutely. Will I eventually build a life without him and be happy again. Absolutely. However, for this time that we occupy, I do need him in my life.

I also agree with Sandy's comment and think it's the proverbial hammer strike.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=matchmaker+services lots on the east coast of course.. sigh. but many out there...

I think of come to the conclusion that I don't need anyone to be happy, I can perfectly unhappy being alone.

I thank the web duck and David for this excellent post!

LOL, David, I didn't think you were referring to be about the "happiness" comment but I guess I got your attention!

***Even if you're not happy, though, you're wonderful. At least, I think so.***
Thank you, David. Now if only I were about twenty years younger, I might get on a plane and come find you!

David, if you just want a "friend with benefits", any dating service will do nicely. You just cannot expect to develop a "relationship" under those circumstances, so the whole issue of need goes away.

If you want to share the ice cream, yourself and your dreams.. .. either find a matchmaker (matchmaking service) in your city or genuinely ask your friends to come up with potential candidates. They know you .. chances are pretty good that they could recommend someone you might not have though about.

wonderful discussions going on here !

Which would you rather have:

To want someone to need you?

Or to need someone to want you?

"Need" is very negative. Interesting discussion, though.

David, you are so lucky to have us all as friends. And we are lucky to have you in our Gather life (at least). This has been a very enlightening discussion, and has probably made every one participating stop and think a little about how we interact in our relationships.

So much has been said it is hard to know what to add. I do see the difference between being needed and being needy . Sometimes being overly needy can drain our family friends , and that is not healthy !

But if you look at contemplative or cloistered orders . . . they're discouraged from forming close relationships with any particular person.
Most of these people are encouraged to form a close relationship with what
their perception of god is... if you look back in History these people are not
always a good example of spiritual enlightenment, take the Inquisition and
the variations there of... a lot of those people needed to be
cloistered because they couldn't handle interpersonal relationships in a healthy manner.

I guess from what has gone before in this thread, that one of the first
priorities in any new relationship is to find out how each person defines need.
Some people use that word to deliberately mislead some one, for example
the young man/boy who tells a girl that he needs to have sex or
"it all backs up into my brain". I know that's kind of an extreme but in the
context of male/female relationships it's not an unheard of discussion. (usually when they're trying to talk her into a deeper intimacy than she's willing
to approach at that time!)
Lynn and Webduck have done a great job of defining their ideas of need, which reflect the more commonly understood definition.
Coming from a family where there was an alcoholic parent I can also relate to you're perspective. In my case it was my mother who was the alcoholic...
although it wasn't until my dad was overseas and my Aunt and her b/f visited
for a couple of weeks that my mother's addiction was discovered... gin and tonic looks just like water if that's what you expect to see! (and Mom was a very genteel alcoholic...no sloppy falling down drunken behavior for her... that just isn't done!)
I was 19 at the time and had grown up only knowing the alcohol influenced version of my mom, my sisters an brother were 12,10, and 8 respectively , and when I attempted to discuss the issue with them the 2 youngest denied any knowledge or overt signs of her problem while the next one after me (she was adopted) accused my mother of never wanting her
in the first place (long story) and after her first daughter was born essentially "divorced" the family... until her husband and she found God and decided to forgive us our "sins"!
Sorry for the digression... anyway my reaction to this was to leave home as
soon as was economically feasible... it took 1200 miles and several years for
my mom and I to become "friendlier" towards each other. It also took me
another 15 years to understand that I could survive quite well on my own if I
had to and that there really isn't anything inherently wrong in being single.
On the otherhand I think I would prefer to have a partner (we wouldn't have to get married) to share my later years with... my "need"
if for some one whom I could count on for emotional support when things get overwhelming... and to have some one else be the "responsable one"
for a change! That's not to say I want to become a needy clinging vine... it would just be nice to have some one to share things with... it helps relieve some of the pressures of daily living in the current state of our society.

Okay, strayed a little off topic... I hope this makes sense to some one other than me :)!

Yikes! I started the previous comment after Lynn's 'friend with benefits' comment.

When I had the "discussion" with my siblings the various versions of it took place 10+ years after my mother joined AA and became "sober".

I love this topic.... I agree with you wholeheartedly...

Everyone should want to feel needed without being needy....

I go through my life very simply. I give more than I expect in return. There's a benefit in this. Whether I give or not is entirely in my hands. It makes me feel cause rather than effect.
To get affection/attention/love/sensuality I'm in the other person's hands and I become an observer rather than an expecter. If I don't get a positive response I move on. With this philosophy I have a 99 % failure rate but that 1 % makes it so worthwhile.