Does clinginess get an undeserved bad rep?

[Zeno Swijtink]

People, like me, who have become experienced in being single and independent do not seem to need anybody to be happy with, could perfectly take care of themselves, it appears.

Clinginess, on the other hand, is often perceived as a weakness, maybe especially by men. In some way this seems to be encouraged by some spiritual practices that advocate to let go, to be detached, not to cling.

But has clinginess received an undeserved bad reputation? According to this NYT article

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/health/06depe.html

dependent urges might bind the relationship together rather than undermine it.

Does self-reliance and independency make it harder to form long-term committed relationships?

[fluteman]

Very interesting article...I have never thought of dependency in such a light before. I must admit that I am one of those "rugged individuals" who gets angry when there are 3 people at the beach, and feels that asking others for help is a life threatening taboo that should be avoided at all costs. It seemed like the point of the article was that dependency in a healthy form was actually beneficial, which makes a lot of sense to me.

Regarding self-reliance and independency making it harder to form long term relationships, in my experience it has definitely proven to be true. I've been single most of my life, and one of my biggest challenges in entering a relationship is actually just getting used to someone being there...ie when you have spent most of your nights sleeping alone, having someone else lying next to you can be a strange, almost uncomfortable feeling.

That being said, I read an article some years ago that talked about the types of baggage that people bring into new romantic relationships. For instance, someone who had been in many relationships could potentially have a ton of past emotional wounds and hurts, yet another person who had been in very few (or none at all, aka the 40 year old virgin) could have just as much baggage if not more. I recall the author saying that "the lack of love or loving relationships is also a form of baggage"...which seemed strange at first, but from personal experience, I have to agree that's it's true, at least in my case.

If I were to continue being really honest, I'd also have to admit that I've always thought people who are continually in and out of relationships were weak and too clingy. I know it's not true in all cases, but the flip side of the coin is that someone who prefers the solitary life is often seen as weak by others, but in reality can be incredibly strong. It's definitely not easy to avoid our basic urges for companionship and sexuality, especially in our modern hormonally driven culture, and to do so takes some mettle. But choosing to ignore some of the more important facets of life altogether isn't exactly a great solution either...such as the story of the young man who climbed a mountain to meet and learn from a wise old sage, only to find that this "sage" was so far removed from reality by being in isolation for decades that he was completely and utterly nuts.

Thanks for sharing. :)

-Erick

[miz editor]

I've given this a lot of thought, especially but not always in relation to gender differences. One ex-boyfriend came out and admitted that, although he realized that "men get lots of training to adapt to being emotionally unfulfilled and unfulfilling beings", he really preferred being emotionally flat and not feeling needy of others' companionship; that his life felt "even" and "neutral", and that any kind of emotion rollercoastering based on the fluctuations of being tuned-into relationships felt disturbing and unnecessary. He said he actively resisted any longings or urges to get out and connect -- he saw those as coming from a weak or "wrong" place. He came right out and stated that he didn't feel that he needed others [except as occasional need-fulfilling objects -- my addition!] Wow. Quelle mismatch that relationship was!
I was present at a dinner -- 5 men, one of whom was the above-mentioned ex- -- when he very seriously said that he didn't need anyone -- and all the other men burst out laughing! I was caught up in enjoying it (and giggling, myself) and didn't ask them exactly what they were laughing at....

I've met quite a few men to whom this applies, and have queried them directly about it; do they really think that humans aren't social/pack animals who require close bonding with others in order to be fufilled as human beings... Do they think that Maslow had it all wrong in his hierarchy, that we really don't require bonding/belonging in order to build a healthy self... And I've received a variety of responses, the most recent from a man who involved his spiritual path (Buddhism) in his rationale -- transcend the self, and you transcend all it's needs, and all that.... I have to say that I respect all the different responses I've received, I do honor the right to differ, I do my best not to pathologize (either the non-clingers or the clingers, both) .... but I really, really DON'T GET IT.

More recently, I've accumulated a number of women friends who've permanently dropped out of/given up on the relationship market to focus (predominantly) on work. Clingy, they're not! But I also don't feel much warmth or bonding, even within the friendships -- as though they're reserving their juice for non-relational activities, or broader, service-oriented activities like their jobs.

I don't know what to make of this, in either men or women. I actively enjoy the heat of bonding, relating, being and getting involved with those I feel some level of affinity or passion for... and clinging (or cleaving) to those cherished bonds feels like a worthy end-in-itself. Not that it's my whole raison d'etre... but it's an essential part of my joy, my creativity, my humor, my path. If that's clingy/needy, so be it, and I'm happy to admit it. Being alone plays it's part, and then the balance tips and I long to connect with a loved one, friend or lover. I could'nt imagine clining all the time -- definitely need those spaces. Anybody like clinging all the time (willing to admit to it)??

[alanora]

Just responding to the use of the word cleave in almost the last line of this post. It seemed so appropriate to me as the word means both connect and cut off! Isn't english odd, as a word can mean both something and its opposite? Particularly appealing to one who appreciates ludicrosity as do I. An invented word..however I believe the meaning is self evident. Mindy

[Zeno Swijtink]

I asked whether "self-reliance and independency make it harder to form long-term committed relationships."

I now wonder whether living has become so complicated that self-reliance and independency is a kind of energy conserving strategy; whether with the multiple levels of viewpoints and interests that an aware individual will encounter, not clinging or attaching, but being that self-contained individual is not just so much easier, maybe the only way of life really sustainable without getting crazy?

[Clancy]

Interesting question. I suspect that the more extroverted an individual is, the easier it is to deal with the myriad complications involved with being with others. The really extroverted are energized and thrive in the hustle and bustle of lots of interaction.

Those of us who are introverts, need a lot of down time to process the often exhausting task of being, sensitively, with others.




I now wonder whether living has become so complicated that self-reliance and independency is a kind of energy conserving strategy; whether with the multiple levels of viewpoints and interests that an aware individual will encounter, not clinging or attaching, but being that self-contained individual is not just so much easier, maybe the only way of life really sustainable without getting crazy?

[mykil]

Everything in life should be used as a tool, I myself use clinginess as a tool to scare people away. You try to get to close to fast and off they go, tools like the thought of being attached to someone that is weak work wonders in resolveing dates that seem to go no where fast, call five times a day or email some bizzare request will work wonders in the appearance that you really are to clingy to even concIder going out with again! lmao! I think what I am saying is that clinginess can also be fun!!!




People, like me, who have become experienced in being single and independent do not seem to need anybody to be happy with, could perfectly take care of themselves, it appears.

Clinginess, on the other hand, is often perceived as a weakness, maybe especially by men. In some way this seems to be encouraged by some spiritual practices that advocate to let go, to be detached, not to cling.

But has clinginess received an undeserved bad reputation? According to this NYT article

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/health/06depe.html

dependent urges might bind the relationship together rather than undermine it.

Does self-reliance and independency make it harder to form long-term committed relationships?

[pjpete]

I think, in my opinion, if two people, or more, are willing and ready to be in a relationship, then they are most likely to be ready for some clinginess.... After all, everyone has the desire to be needed, wanted, appreciated.

[NorseViking869]

I found that being clingy and aklso being involved with someone who is clingy pushes people away rather than bringing them closer. I want to draw my potential partner closer, not push her away. I find that i run fast and far from clingy people, yet I can be guilty of being too clingy at times.

[Yubajeff]

Thanks for reviving this thread, since it synch's with my own relationship timeline.
At the start of my last LTR 2.5 yrs ago, I came across a book called "The 5 Love Languages" (I passed my copy on long ago to others who might benefit). I knew it was spot on, and I gave it my paramour to read. Little did I realize at the time how important that book would be to both of us, after that initial chemical love buzz -? oxytocin mixed with dopamine and a little norepinephrine somewhere in the mid-brain - wore off. Serotonin, which relates more to mood stability, likely tanks. Stability is not exactly the prevailing emotion at the start of amore' (pardon my French).
Specifically, my love language is tactile, or words to that effect. This can be misinterpreted as "clinginess", but that would be incorrect. To me it represents emotional availability, given my own neurobiological organization. There could be a small percentage of my "touchy feely" behavior that is indeed "clinginess". I have my moments of insecurity like everyone else. l I can also validate Myquil's earlier post in this thread, with a different flavor (no one tastes as weird as Mykil, dont'cha know). He is way ahead of me in seeing it as a valuable way to filter out women who may appear to be potential soulmates but are in reality not a good match at all. That's a good spin, and excellent cognitive therapy. My own feeble brain felt disimpowered by the mini-rejection of, for example, a lack of enthusiasm for simply holding-hands. They say prostitutes will never kiss clients mouth-to-mouth; maybe that's why I've never been tempted, even though I'm not known for thinking with brain, if you get my drift.
And my last partner read the book, and then asked me what I myself thought her love language was. I already knew the answer, as she made no bones (some good boners though) about it; her love language was receiving gifts. You might say she was materialistic (most people are), but one thing I loved about her was indeed that she was so up front about it, no guile of anykind. Nothing underhanded, as the song goes, pure if sometimes brutal honesty. I practice radical honesty myself, hopefully with a smattering more of tact. So once we discussed this differential, we were able to have a mutally satisfying relationship, living together for over a year, until we split up over other unrelated differences.
I have never rejected a woman for being clingy in the physical sense, although I did bolt from the previous LTR due to "emotional" clinginess, to the point of hostage taking, way beyond any normal human jealousy.
My deep and lasting interest in this and related issues has turned itself into the beginnings of book on the subject, incorporating the neurobiology and neurochemistry, the genetic and hormonal, the anatomical, and the spiritual differences between male and female brains and bodies. Two recent books on the female brain by female psychiatrists in academia (one at UCSF) were disappointing, and I can't recommend them, unless you want to see how primitive the current scientific perspective really is. I believe we already have adequate scientific data to clarify the issue, which has not been properly synthesized. Additional input from men and women, but especially women, on this thread would be welcome (and probably plagiarized for my book, although if the woman became a co-author, then it wouldn't be plagiarism, right? Plagiarism now that I think about it seems to increase book sales, there is no such thing as "bad" publicity, don'tcha think? Any takers?
Yubajeff
[email protected]


I found that being clingy and aklso being involved with someone who is clingy pushes people away rather than bringing them closer. I want to draw my potential partner closer, not push her away. I find that i run fast and far from clingy people, yet I can be guilty of being too clingy at times.

[NorseViking869]

Your welcome yubajeff. I think intimacy and touch is very important to making a relationship thrive. Just as a mother's nurturing touch with her baby creates healthy stimulus, so it goes that affection towards a partner and its receipt keep love new and keep hearts growing. Just my opinion. I do desire someone as affectionate if not more so. The women I seek in life are emotionally available, emotionally stable, and intimate. It is wierd that many women i meet are never all three. sometimes combos of the 2 out of 3 traits, one trait or none at all. I am making the concious decision that i can't settle for less than all 3.

[NorseViking869]

Not to defend clinginess or to blatantly disagree with you, I would say clingy behavior is based upon the person on the receiving end, not the giver of the affection. There are some women (and men) that would like an affectionate lover; moreover, I do not think that clinginess for me is a red flag telling me to stop, drop and run away; furthermore, I would rather be with a partner who is overly affectionate, than not affectionate at all. I can tell a lady that ios clingy to politely give me some breathing room, rather than to dump her. I think it is a bigger red flag when you are incapable of showing affection to the man who brings you flowers and brings you lunch so you ont clock in late and potentially lose a lucrative job.

The point is what one woman may consider clingy behavior from me, might not be considered affectionate enough by another. Clingy by my interpretation is preventing your partner from making decisions, keeping them from projects and work/study et al. To me that is not clingy as much as it is controlling. It may be by seemingly benevolent means, but it is still control.

In my younger years I was guilty of being clingy by my definition. The fear of loneliness, abandonment issues and and loving too strongly someone that did not return the love caused me to be clingy. That was unhealthy for both my partner and I; however, I will say that Clinginess by most peoples definitions, gets a bad rap because it is subjective. What you find clingy, someone may find just right, or not affectionate enough.


No, it's deserved.

[NorseViking869]

I feel that it is a broad generalization to state that only clingy people would label clingy behavior as merely being clingy. It is subjective reality not objective. People I deem as clingy might not be clingy to you at all. You may find them genuinely affectionate. Then again someone you find clingy I may find genuinly affectionate. It is based on too many things to just say "all you people over here are clingy!" There is the level of comfort to concider and attraction level.

I won't defend my actions in my past relationships in my younger and more innocent years. I am sure you might have thought me as clingy to any number of people I dated and as an observer you may have been right , using your opinion of what you feel is obsessive smothering. To each is own, I always say. My two most recent relationshipss were not clingy at all, infact I feel they lacked emotional intamacy and true affection. I would peobably take ansd welcome a clingy woman in my life compared to one that is incapable of emotional intamcy.


Only clingy people describe their clinginess as "affection". Uggh!!! Actual affection never feels clingy to me.

[NorseViking869]

First off I never said that you were clingy and or un-affectionate. never did I attack you; however, I see you let your claws out for no reason whatsoever. Why the harsh tone with you using quotations on my name and attacking me as a lecturer.

Secondly , you obviously are smart but do not understand the difference between Fact and opinion. It is your opinion that Clingy is clingy to all , not just in your eyes. Prove it. if you can prove it, then it must be fact. However, it is not a fact, it is only an opinion based upon your subjective reality. Yes I have my own subjective reality, so what, we all do. If you cant deal with it, tough. That is the world we live in. Would you want the world to be any other way. We are able to voice our opinions;however, when an opinion is forced on others as if it is a fact, then we lose our ability to communicate.

Do not tell me what to do or say. I asked not for your advice, nor is it warrented. I will lecture if I so desire, especially if I see someone insert there truth as the worlds truth.

I never attacked you or was rude to you. Why did you feel it nessicery to attack me?


I would choose neither and furthermore, I disagree. Clinginess will never equal affection and vice versa. Nope, they're not the same in the least "Norse Viking".

Further -- please don't lecture about subjective/objective realities when you have your own subjective reality from which you speak and no, I don't think anyone would ever call me clingy or unaffectionate.

[NorseViking869]

So basically in so many words you have shown that you are intolerant. I find it amusing that you are upset that because of my web handle that you would be offended at my expressing my opinion. It is as if you would be more than thrilled if a woman named "DEVA KAI" or if a Dr' like "FRED ALLEN WOLFE" were to have expressed it. It is an insult for you to be told the truth if it comes in the form of a man, one that has the audacity to have pride in his ancestry. You obviously are ignorant to my culture, as are most people. However that is not the issue here.

My point was valid, regardless of the skin I'm in. Regardless of my sex or heritage, I was on point. You expressed that your opinion was an altruism shared the world over. All I said is that I do not want anyone speaking for me or anyone else. You did that in your posts. You made it clear that the way you see the world is the way everyone does. That is not true. So here is my question for you. What behaviors do you find as clingy, FOR YOU and YOU ALONE? Not for all your friends, not for the people on WACCObb, but for you and only you.

You may find out that we all see differnt things as obsesive behaviour; moreover, I do find it sexist and racist of you to point out that you were insulted by me, but unlike you, I can let it slide, like water slides off a ducks back.


Never did you "attack" me - however, it is insulting to be told by someone who calls himself "Norse Viking" that I "...do not understand the difference between <f>act and opinion...", huh? Did you really say that?

</f>

[NorseViking869]

Apology accepted. All I am trying to do is think and be conscious as I hope that we all can be.


However, Norse Viking -- I must say, that in re-reading my own posts -- I thought my own comment was rather obnoxious "...only clingy people call their clinginess "affection" " ... and for that I am sorry. You have my apology sir.

[NorseViking869]

My blood pressure is very good and nor did I get angry this whole time. I was amused by what I read but felt compelled to add my two cents where I thought it was needed. Yes we all agree 110% that Clinginess exists; however, all I said was , "What is Clingy for me or what is clingy for you is not clingy for Joe Schmoe or Mary jane up the street." We know clinginess exist, I was not argueing that at all.My point was that we all have a veiw of what is clingy that might not jive with everyone else.


?

And furthermore -- claws out? Huh? UH reread your little "friendly" posts!
The whole paradigm of this little debate was whether clinginess deserves it's bad rap, etc. Therefore, we have already conceded that "clinginess" does, in fact, exist if we are going to debate it's merits or lack thereof. (i.e. telling me that "...it's subjective..."; would be a completely other subject) So, Dude - Check your blood pressure. Take 2 aspirin.

[NorseViking869]

If your not sorry anymore then you weren't sorry in the first place. And you did not even read where I accepted your worthless apology .

NAMASTE

P.S. you never answered the question.


OH SWEET JESUS -- I QUIT! AND FURTHERMORE I'M NOT EVEN SORRY ANYMORE!

[mykil]

:heart::heart: I am sure you two will make a really cute couple! :heart::heart:

[NorseViking869]

LMAO. Nah, I don't see my self dating a hate monger.


:heart::heart: I am sure you two will make a really cute couple! :heart::heart:

[Barry]

I'm sorry to see this worthwhile discussion devolve into name calling and accusations. I'm sorry I didn't step in earlier. I've been largely offline for the last couple of days dealing with family issues.

Especially in this "Conscious Relationship" category, I would like to see everybody be kinder and more respectful and to not take offense so easily.

:heart:

[NorseViking869]

Im sorry if you feel I had any play in this. I did not. I never called lotus names and any and all accusations were 100% true. i admit I could have had thicker skin and let her just dig her hole deeper. I think that her own apology/ refuting her own aplogy shows her true character. I still however accept it despite how empty it was.


I'm sorry to see this worthwhile discussion devolve into name calling and accusations. I'm sorry I didn't step in earlier. I've been largely offline for the last couple of days dealing with family issues.

Especially in this "Conscious Relationship" category, I would like to see everybody be kinder and more respectful and to not take offense so easily.

:heart: