Want vs Need (step aside Bradshaw)

I still can't effectively distinguish between things that I want and things that I need...In certain circumstances its fairly obvious I suppose - I need water to survive, and I want to try that new chocolate bar...But this compass I loose once I try to assess my needs and wants in a relationship.

I think the reason this confusion exists is because a relationship in of itself is not something I need. Therefore when I do want it and have it, I expect all my 'wants' to be satisfied (otherwise why be in it), since technically there are no needs. This is the tricky part, because it is unlikely that any partner will satisfy my array of wants in totality (as it is unlikely that i will satisfy their's), therefore I have to in a sense begin ranking my wants by importance. This is even trickier, because it demands the wisdom of experience.

So how do we rank our wants? Should we use hedonistic calculus? Should we rank them with some regard to what our current partners can provide? Do we want everything? Where is it that I can compromise in a relationship.

I really need to find an answer to this question, I'm not just reflecting here. I realize that instead of ranking our wants in a relationship, we fall into the trap of ranking our partners! For example, Joe meets Jane, Joe's as thick as a brick, Jane's never looked for intelligence in a man, but because she hasn't realized that intelligence for her is an insignificant want (if one at all), Jane compares herself to her friends, and ranks/labels Joe as an idiot she shouldn't be interested in - while in reality, had she consulted her own check-list, she could have had a long lasting relationship with Joe.

There are general categories of things we look for in a partner: how successful are they in what they do, in their family relationships, humour, intelligence, beauty, affection, generosity etc. I have accepted that my categories will not match anybody else's, and likewise my order of wants is unique to me.

Now let me throw in another twist and bring us into a hypothetical situation. Martin meets Larry, Larry connects with Martin on so many levels, enjoys the affection between them immensely, finds him funny, intelligent, handsome, and generous. Although he and Martin don't share many interests and with time he has discovered some impatience, he sees these as things easily surmountable. The catch is, Martin refuses to sexually please Larry, the affection between them never develops into a physical intimacy that Larry expects from his partners. What is Larry to do in this case? Sex is a different category in a sense because it may be categorized as a legitimate human 'need'. But with so many of Larry's wants satisfied in his partner Martin, he wonders whether it is worth loosing so much over sex.

Larry fears that resentment will grow, that he will crack under the pressure and make a few mistakes with other people he meets. He fears that the lack of common interests and Martin's impatience will be accentuated by this sexual void. And conversely he realizes that Martin is a rigid monogamist who rarely compromises.

In an ideal world, Martin would at least consult his own compass of wants in a relationship - if he shares Larry's passion for what they have together, he may find room for compromise, for a future.

I don't believe relationships are confusing or complicated. If they become so then there should be no reason to hold on. These are some things to think about though.