Should your partner be the resource of your happiness?

Question

According to me  NO , I stick to Will Smiths Theory: Will Smith said, “her happiness is not my responsibility. She should be happy and I should be happy individually. Then we come together and share our happiness. Giving someone a responsibility to make you happy when you can't do it for yourself is selfish” let that sink in This is one of the best eye opening phrases to me, because it's a fact that if you can't be happy individually, you can't expect your SO to make you happy, it's selfish !!!  What are your thoughts? I stick to this theory and trust me guys, it works pretty well in my relationship.

Bluemax · Accepted Answer

*The* source of happiness? As in sole source of happiness? No, certainly not.

-However-

*A* source of happiness? Yes, definitely.

I know this is an unpopular opinion. I know there's a lot of pop psychology crap that mates are supposed to *add* to your happiness, but being alone should *never* detract from your happiness. That's nonsense.

Show me an evolutionary psychologist that agrees with that. They don't.

My friends, humans are *EVOLVED* to pair bond with each. It definitely conveys evolutionary advantages on our species when we do. And failure to pair bond conveys evolutionary disadvantages if we don't. Sex is about 1/2 billion years old. We'll say pair bonding arose with the evolution of mammals, which happened about 200 million years ago. So the sex drive and the drive to pair bond has been drilled into us for hundreds of millions of years. Hobbies, by the way (something often suggested in lieu of pair bonding), are barely a few tens of thousands of years old. Not enough to be drilled into us. Thoughts often don't effect us with as much intensity as feelings. Most evolutionary psychologists believe this is because thoughts are relatively young in the evolutionary scheme, but feelings are very old. They've been drilled into us more.

Furthermore, loneliness and touch starvation are very real. Consider this thought experiment. A person on an island all by him/herself. Not a human at all. Yet somehow that person is magically provided for. Food, shelter, water, clothing, all the necessities of life just flop into his/her hands. Do you honestly think most people would be happy as the decades wore on, completely alone? I don't. In fact, I'd wager years would be shaved off his/her life.

And loneliness, by the way, has strongly correlated with mortality. It probably shaves years off people's lives. And touch starvation damages cortisol production, dopamine production, endorphin production, and a shit ton of other things. These things are all measurable and known to effect people's IQ and moods.

And it's not just humans. We've noticed this in other primates and even cetaceans. They live shorter lives too when they don't mate. Gorillas demonstrate near psychotic behavior patterns when prevented from pair bonding.

On a personal note, I was married to the most wonderful woman on the planet for 14 years. Doubtless we still would be married if she hadn't shuffled off her mortal coil. Yes, I was reasonably happy before I met her. Yet my happiness rocketed out of the galaxy when I *did* fall in love with her. Now she's gone. My happiness is seriously diminished, particularly recently. I doubt that's a coincidence. And to those who might be thinking, "Well, you're just not doing singleness right." I answer I don't agree. I have wonderful friends. I go sailing. I travel. I fly an airplane. I read passionately. I write. I play piano. Sometimes I try to compose. I play games. I study. I love my job. All of these things are the usual suggestions for people who are lonely. I do them all (and more), and yet my happiness remains *considerably* lower than when my wife was alive.

So should a lover be your sole source of happiness? No, certainly not. But is a lover a completely legit source of not just a little happiness, but an abundance of happiness which all the hobbies in the world can't be a substitute for? Certainly.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

No, in that aspect it then turns into a parasitism or parasitic relationship. The latter is better describe to when the end result is lethal to the host. Ultimately one should not let their well being subjected around the actions or presence of anyone but themselves. One should be self sustainable in all aspects surrounding means of living (of their standards) and their state of well-being, from emotions, self-perceptions, morality income, housing and so forth. Relationships can get complex whens Children are now included, which then "One" means themselves and the child/children (responsibility of well being of the children is half theirs and yours, as to the guidance necessary).

I believe this is much at its core responsible issues that are holding back upcoming and current generations from having better success and experiences in life. There is definitely a lack of self sustainable actions being carried out in society, to much outside subliminal influence n control and expectations of protection are not ones own responsibility.

Im shutting up now. 💯✌🏼

btbc92 · Accepted Answer

Yes and no. I don't think people fully understand what that movie The Pursuit of happiness quote actually means.

You should be whole and happy as individuals. But when you come together that person's happiness is very much your priority as your personal happiness should be there soon. That's especially what it means to be married. Because when you're married you do have those obligations. It is not the same thing as dating a person. Dating is one thing. To have a partner is another. And when you have a partner you are just as responsible for their personal happiness as it's vice versa. It's not so much about what it means to you or just what you think of it. But what is truly a relationship.

Think about this. If this is true then why should he have to care about his own son's happiness when his son is his own person? Even though Jaden Smith is his real son, he also plays the son in the movie also, as they tend to do in other movies. It is because his son is his happiness. And when his son is unhappy he's not happy. That's why he works so hard to take care of his son not because he is obligated as a father because he truly loves his son. What he meant is that the woman should be happy enough to truly want to see him happy. And he wants to be happy enough to make the other person happy. Because of you don't have the happiness that you need in yourself, you going to have a hard time wanting to keep another person happy. He didn't say for us or anyone to be selfish. What he's saying is that your biggest priority is working on yourself so that you'll be able to fulfill that happiness the other person needs. Because if you're not able to receive yourself how would you be able to give another person unless you already are a naturally a giver?

aWes0MeNeSs · Accepted Answer

I agree with you. While a partner should bring you joy, they should never be the sole source of your happiness. They should add to it. People who rely completely on other people for their happiness never truly end up finding happiness.

jennifer_bloom · Answer

What I believe is that you have to be so ambitious and selfless that if your current partner dies or dumps you, you can replace him with a better option without batting an eye. I know married woman who work insanely hard to make themselves attractive to make sure they are still datable in the event their current partner simmers down towards them.

AmandaYVR · Answer

Some  of it. Absolutely.  Not all  of it. And there's a big difference.

FriendlyDrugDealer · Answer

I think everyone should be responsible for their own individual happiness and your partner helps by adding more happiness to it.

I made that mistake before in the past and I promised myself a long time ago to never put any girlfriend in that position ever again. You have to love yourself and make yourself happy. If you struggle with happiness by yourself then that’s a recipe for disaster waiting to happen. Your partner should just add a bit of extra spice to your life which gives it more flavor and uniqueness to it, that’s it.

Rei02 · Answer

I agree, acknowledging it means also maturity.

Different from what love and romantic stories promote or sell, our happiness can't depend on others, neither a partner, a friend, a family member, etc. We need to find our own happiness by ourselves and not projecting that quest on others.

That also can explain why there are many break ups, separations, divorces, etc., in part because one creates and builds expectations from the partner about that he/she will act, behave and even think according to what you think it is your happiness.

ArztSchlachthof · Answer

To my mind, a relationship should supply you with Additional energy and happiness, or rather act as a catalyst. You should be enthusiastic and happy without it, it's simple maths - if you want to have a positive result by multiplying a number, that number must be positive itself.

As for Smith's idea - I agree. But some people are not so strong to be happy on their own, so it's not really practical for the masses.

Cobygonzalez0603 · Answer

I believe you should be happy with yourself and love yourself first before helping, loving, or seeking that extra level of happiness that someone else could offer to you.
Whenever you achieve that self love and respect then you can actually step up and seek another level of fulfillment and companionship that someone else may have to offer to you

ChrisMaster69 · Answer

I view it as sort of buckets you have as an individual.

you have 2 say,

1 for yourself and the other to share.

when you are single, you keep filling yours and share out any spare from the 2nd

in a relationship it’s similar, however the 2nd bucket is what they get but also you can give from your own bucket directly into theirs.

they can also do the same fill yours from their 2nd bucket or from their own,

bascially we are responsible for our own buckets of happiness but if the other is down, even though you are also down you can use some of your own bucket of happiness, even though you may have less then them.

I always put the other person first, so while I expect them to manage their own happiness, I am there to either fully fill them or just give them a little squirt of happiness.

ObscuredBeyond · Answer

In reality, our fulfillment should be in God, and in opportunity to serve him. A partner should exist to make us more effective at it. This is also why the New Testament places such a heavy demand on the individual to exercise heavy discretion when choosing a partner, to avoid being "unevenly yoked."

A minister with a crazy wife will not long make for a very effective minister. And a Sunday youth group leader with a philandering husband will struggle to keep her own life in order long enough to be qualified for her position.

I've been witness to both. A once-respected campus ministry minister destroyed by his crazy wife. And a very popular and fun youth group leader whose husband was absolute garbage, and then divorced her. And unable to cope, she made all sorts of bad decisions, and then got pregnant. And realized this undermined her mission, so she resigned in disgrace.

MCheetah · Answer

In theory and on paper, no, no they shouldn't be a source of happiness for you.

In reality, yes, yes they should. Because the world sucks and is sh*t almost everywhere and happiness is rare and hard to come by, nowadays. Especially when everyone is insecure and depressed all the time.

Don't knock happiness, no matter where you get it from. As long as you're not hurting others, be grateful for any source of happiness you can get. I sure as hell would if I was literally ever happy about anything in life.

HugoThe2nd · Answer

Of course they should be.
If people were happy by themselves, nobody would bother being in relationship ever.
Relationships are the single most important source of happiness for the overwhelming majority of people in the world.

Your theory is a reality denying feel-good "independent" poppycock, it's not at all how people work.
We are social creatures who absolutely need the company and affection of other people to feel happy and maintain our well being and there is nothing shameful or weak in acknowledging that.

If I was serious about dating, I would not date a woman with your belief because it screams attachment issues to me.

ThatNoUVAtYourEyes · Answer

Your other should, is not - a _resource_ of any kind.
It is a living, mammal, typically human being the experiences joy through safety and stability of comforts, including a joyful outlook on the future.
Happiness we seek is in fact joy at small things that matter, experienced fear and anxiety free (unlike accomplishments which are boosts of confidence but short lived and happen when some obstacle is overcome).
No human is a toy, though females very very often treat males as their resource/toy/personal (emotional and physical) property or extension of self.
Both sides being complete individuals brought together by attraction and trusting each other is required for joy of togetherness.

rjroy3 · Answer

"The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. " ~ Jack Sparrow.

Far more valuable lesson that was was well put by Jack Sparrow. There is no should or shouldn't. There's only what you can and can't do. Or rather there is only what IS.

You can sit down and fantasize how things "should" be in the world. Or you can accept what is, make a decision and move forward. Considering what could be for purposes of decision making is one thing but delving into "should" is damaging for most people.

MasterfullyX · Answer

I disagree but I can see why you said no. I know as a single guy I can be happy by myself but sometimes I want someone or friends to raise my mood care make an effort have me feel included because not every person is extrovert, not every person wants to be centre or attention. No we aren't all they same, some want to follow or be the follower, a follower might be the energy of the group. Each person's happiness is different aswell. Some want attention from many, some only want attention from one. If who I am with isn't happy I'm not happy, so I care to support them through bad times. If you can't be with someone through those moments then you shouldn't deserve to be with them in at their best. But if a person brings you down all the time sucks away your energy from a one way relationship it's time to find someone who brings the qualities that make you happy, complete.

DJB72 · Answer

No. Absolutely not. Your partner's happiness should matter to you, of course, but you can't be the source of their happiness and they can't be the source of yours.

I want my wife to be happy, but if I'm not the cause of her unhappiness, I can't be the source of her happiness either. Not in the long term. Trying to be is unhealthy at best and destructive to the relationship.

he-takes-a-part · Answer

Then in will smith kind of a story/relation majorly sad stories would be shared. if will smith said this to his wife particularly then this is troublesome coz i believe source of his happiness should be her majorly and not outward world where there are more externalities. Yes if he has done some inner engineering then his phrase is apt.
Coz otherwise as per his statement relation can be more unstable at most of the times. You made family for your happiness too rather than just for the sake of making family. Anyway will smith is still far from philosophy. I incessantly believe that happiness should primarily come from your closed ones and not material ones.
Will smith concept seems to be meeting at the edge worth box with the happiness to trade it rather than to meet to create happiness etc etc.

ArrowheadSW · Answer

I totally agree each person should achieve their own happiness. Then they can some together and be happy together.

I have dated a few women in the past who had the attitude, "Here I am. Now make me happy"... It doesn't work that way.

Lliam · Answer

I agree with what you said. You can't depend on someone else to make you happy if you aren't happy with yourself.
But at the same time, my wife brings me great happiness. I am forever grateful for her. We make each OTHER happy, but still have our own lives.

Anon621 · Answer

I don't think your partner should be your main source of happiness no. I believe your partner should be additional happiness on top of the happiness you currently have but then if you break up I personally would still be happy because I know I got another chance at finding love even though it didn't work unfortunately but thats how life goes

Inexpensivefurniture · Answer

I agree with Will Smith. It's not fair to put the responsibility of your happiness on another person. Beyond that, it's bound to fail. You have to be happy alone before you can be happy with someone else

Anonymous · Answer

If they can't be the source of my happiness then what do I need them for? Only to dance around me when I'm happy, successful and interesting to be around? Or they're just for sex?
I don't need conditional love. I have no problem making a genuine person happy so I also expect the same.

Should your partner be the resource of your happiness?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should your partner be the resource of your happiness?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.