Believing the fantasies described in love songs can be unhealthy.

[SteveLaura 0]

Where do you work, if you don't mind me asking? It sounds like a university of some sort, since that kind of class wouldn't usually be offered at a high school. I'd like to take that class (or at least audit it) since it sounds quite interesting. I've always preferred classes that make the students think and engage them in conversation, as opposed to the professor merely lecturing, handing out reading assignments and tests.

I work at a homeless shelter. I train the residents to staff homes for people with mental illness. They have to go through 8 weeks of training. I only run about a third to a half of the classes. This particularly class is to help them see that there are boundaries when working in a professional, residential setting - the difference between being 'friendly' and 'being a friend'. We look at all types of relationships - between partners, siblings, parents, friends, doctors, police, etc - and discuss what is appropritae in each case. The hope is that they don't overstep the boundary and start counselling the clients or, on the other end of the spectrum, take them down the local bar.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Where do you work, if you don't mind me asking? It sounds like a university of some sort, since that kind of class wouldn't usually be offered at a high school. I'd like to take that class (or at least audit it) since it sounds quite interesting. I've always preferred classes that make the students think and engage them in conversation, as opposed to the professor merely lecturing, handing out reading assignments and tests.

I work at a homeless shelter. I train the residents to staff homes for people with mental illness. They have to go through 8 weeks of training. I only run about a third to a half of the classes. This particularly class is to help them see that there are boundaries when working in a professional, residential setting - the difference between being 'friendly' and 'being a friend'. We look at all types of relationships - between partners, siblings, parents, friends, doctors, police, etc - and discuss what is appropritae in each case. The hope is that they don't overstep the boundary and start counselling the clients or, on the other end of the spectrum, take them down the local bar.

oy, our local specialized special ed schools for young troubled boys (ages 7-11) do the same thing, train them in social etiquette since they havent picked it up yet, things like that, whats appropriate and what is not ... its nice to know when they grow up and become homeless they will still need the same training.

[SteveLaura 0]

oy, our local specialized special ed schools for young troubled boys (ages 7-11) do the same thing, train them in social etiquette since they havent picked it up yet, things like that, whats appropriate and what is not ... its nice to know when they grow up and become homeless they will still need the same training.

Most of the men in the class have never worked in a office setting before, and have little to no experience in working with people with mental illness. I have trainees who go around the houses expecting the clients to attack them with a machete or 'turn them crazy', and those who suddenly think they're Sigmund Freud. I want them to see that certain behaviors are inappropriate in a professional setting. Eg. Would you hug a friend? Would you hug your doctor? Would you lend money to your best friend? Would you lend money to your doctor? Most of the issues I have to deal with are the staff becoming too friendly with the clients - not intimately, but overstepping the professional boundary.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

oh they're working with those with mental illness, not the people with mental illness themselves. got it. i had it twisted.

[SteveLaura 0]

oh they're working with those with mental illness, not the people with mental illness themselves. got it. i had it twisted.

Yeah, tho some of the trainees do have some level of mental illness (as many of us do, if I'm being properly PC). It's a unique program. Award-winning, actually (nothing to do with me, tho - years before I started).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

oh they're working with those with mental illness, not the people with mental illness themselves. got it. i had it twisted.

Yeah, tho some of the trainees do have some level of mental illness (as many of us do, if I'm being properly PC). It's a unique program. Award-winning, actually (nothing to do with me, tho - years before I started).

oh i'm sure most of us do in our own special way. i'm reasonably certain i have a learning disorder and a speech impediment and probably a mental issue or two.

good program.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting. I run a class here at work - on boundaries, but it includes relationships - and we discuss whether relationships between partners can be 'unconditional'. The split in opinion is usually 50-50. Those who argue that it can be believe in the heart conquering the mind, and that even if you separate from your partner, you can still love them. The opposite view is that there are some events that can occur in relationships that would be a definite deal-breaker and they could not imagine loving that person again.

I think the concept of loving our spouses unconditionally doesn't mean that an abused spouse should stay in the marriage. It is more of an attitude that I accept you for who you are, in spite of your flaws, rather than a promise to love them no matter what they may do in the future. The latter would be reckless and unrealistic.

[almaty 19]

Interesting. I run a class here at work - on boundaries, but it includes relationships - and we discuss whether relationships between partners can be 'unconditional'. The split in opinion is usually 50-50. Those who argue that it can be believe in the heart conquering the mind, and that even if you separate from your partner, you can still love them. The opposite view is that there are some events that can occur in relationships that would be a definite deal-breaker and they could not imagine loving that person again.

I think the concept of loving our spouses unconditionally doesn't mean that an abused spouse should stay in the marriage. It is more of an attitude that I accept you for who you are, in spite of your flaws, rather than a promise to love them no matter what they may do in the future. The latter would be reckless and unrealistic.

i agree, also to be there through good and bad times..sickness and in health...

[Alex+R 0]

Interesting. I run a class here at work - on boundaries, but it includes relationships - and we discuss whether relationships between partners can be 'unconditional'. The split in opinion is usually 50-50. Those who argue that it can be believe in the heart conquering the mind, and that even if you separate from your partner, you can still love them. The opposite view is that there are some events that can occur in relationships that would be a definite deal-breaker and they could not imagine loving that person again.

I think the concept of loving our spouses unconditionally doesn't mean that an abused spouse should stay in the marriage. It is more of an attitude that I accept you for who you are, in spite of your flaws, rather than a promise to love them no matter what they may do in the future. The latter would be reckless and unrealistic.

'Unconditionally' means with no conditions. The "reckless and unrealistic" state is unconditional love.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting. I run a class here at work - on boundaries, but it includes relationships - and we discuss whether relationships between partners can be 'unconditional'. The split in opinion is usually 50-50. Those who argue that it can be believe in the heart conquering the mind, and that even if you separate from your partner, you can still love them. The opposite view is that there are some events that can occur in relationships that would be a definite deal-breaker and they could not imagine loving that person again.

I think the concept of loving our spouses unconditionally doesn't mean that an abused spouse should stay in the marriage. It is more of an attitude that I accept you for who you are, in spite of your flaws, rather than a promise to love them no matter what they may do in the future. The latter would be reckless and unrealistic.

i agree, also to be there through good and bad times..sickness and in health...

It seems that most couples aren't divorcing over 'deal breakers' - an event or action their spouse has done that has caused irrepairable damage to the marriage, but over such things as irreconciliable differences. It's like saying, "I realized you're not the romantic ideal of the person I thought I married and I find that unacceptable."

[SteveLaura 0]

I think the concept of loving our spouses unconditionally doesn't mean that an abused spouse should stay in the marriage. It is more of an attitude that I accept you for who you are, in spite of your flaws, rather than a promise to love them no matter what they may do in the future. The latter would be reckless and unrealistic.

I agree with that. And also Dean's statement - good times & bad, sickness & in health. However, I don't equate that to unconditional love, altho I can see how it could be interpreted as that. I see it more in Alex+R's terms - without conditions. There are conditions in all relationships. I assume that most of us here have been in more than one relationship, and that sometimes we ended that relationship. In my case, it has been because some of those conditions that I believed in were broken and could not be fixed by the two of us. I can look back fondly on most of those relationships as they are a part of me and brought me to this place, but I couldn't say I still love those women. Am I rambling now? I have a headache.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Interesting. I run a class here at work - on boundaries, but it includes relationships - and we discuss whether relationships between partners can be 'unconditional'. The split in opinion is usually 50-50. Those who argue that it can be believe in the heart conquering the mind, and that even if you separate from your partner, you can still love them. The opposite view is that there are some events that can occur in relationships that would be a definite deal-breaker and they could not imagine loving that person again.

I think the concept of loving our spouses unconditionally doesn't mean that an abused spouse should stay in the marriage. It is more of an attitude that I accept you for who you are, in spite of your flaws, rather than a promise to love them no matter what they may do in the future. The latter would be reckless and unrealistic.

'Unconditionally' means with no conditions. The "reckless and unrealistic" state is unconditional love.

Nothing is "unconditional" though, even love. It's romantic to say otherwise (and some may even believe it), but if your spouse cheated on you or molested your child or did a number of other "horrible" things ("horrible" depends on your value system; while most people would agree that child molestation is detestable, others may not even blink when it comes to sleeping with someone other than their husband or wife), would you still love them, or at least, love the same as you did before?