
A great dilemma that we often face is an apparent tension between desire for freedom and love. Am I free to be as I am? Do I need to change myself to be loving and loved? An intimate relationship seems to highlight this dichotomy.
My single friend recently said, 'I'm not interested in a relationship because I'm meeting myself so deeply'. I know what she means. There is a thirst to be with ourselves as deeply as we can, without the distractions of another. At the same time I'm finding that to meet myself deeply is the only way for me to "survive" an intimate relationship.
"To hold on to myself" as David Schnarch, author of "Passionate Marriage", my recent inspiration, puts it.
As a cis-woman I have received a subtle yet clear conditioning to take care of others. It's complex because there is also my maternal instinct in the mix, as well as an authentic movement of the heart to comfort. It creates confusion about whose needs are more important.
I also experience myself as "open to the world" in a permeable kind of way. I am easily affected and influenced. There is a gift in this, and a shadow side that makes it difficult to be clear what is me, and what is the other. This can lead to difficulties in making decisions, recognizing my needs and knowing when enough is enough. This is not uncommon for women. Our history contributes to it; parents not supporting our individuation and the world invading our boundaries in myriads of ways. That doesn't make it easy to be defined in an intimate relationship.
Thanks to my recent experiences, I have gone from thinking "I can't be in a relationship because I loose myself" to "intimate relationship is the perfect way to develop my differentiation skills". Better late than never!
What I mean by differentiation is feeling myself as a free and separate individual and being able to express it. The opposite is being emotionally fused with my partner. The problem with that is that I’d need to maintain a certain unspoken "status quo", so as not to rock the boat, and sacrifice my freedom.
Here is an example.
I noticed that whenever we were together I was always "not quite okay", in need of protection or care taking, and mostly in a "soft" kind of mode. He than showed up as strong and capable. Nothing wrong with that in principle, however there was something static in that dynamic that was constricting. When I realized it I began to inquire within. I realized that in order to be loved, I was acting out my internal conditioning to embody only the receptive aspects of my nature, whilst cutting off my fierceness and power. When I allowed my power to rise up from within I felt free to be affectionate and to move closer or further away as I wished to.
As I stepped beyond what was my internal "permitted territory", I felt my life force returning. Soon the unconscious material was surfacing for both of us due to this new permission in the field. He had to face his part of the bargain: suppressing his anger towards me.
We created a held container to witness each other in different parts of our psyches.
The relief I felt when he finally landed in his anger was unspeakable. It burst my heart open. Not only was it safe to receive the anger but it also penetrated through layers of dissociation I was carrying that I was unable to release on my own.
Such were the gifts of our disentanglement. We found ourselves in a place of deeper intimacy and greater freedom at the same time. My hope for "freedom in relationship" returned.
And this works for any kind of relating. If you’re feeling stuck or constricted, ask yourself: what part of myself am I cutting off or not living? It’s so much about our own inner permission and less about “them”.
I feel that a women's journey is often to travel from her soft and caring heart down to the strength of her belly. I recognize my longing to inhabit my hips and my legs all the way down to connect me with my beloved earth and stand like that next to my man. Than my heart feels grounded and supported, rooted in reality and a power struggle between the sexes becomes "power matching".
Comments