"Well Mrs TwistyNips,
I would say that across nearly 8 billion humans (plus relationships across other species and phenomena), there's a wide variety of cognitive channels, and a wide variety of cultural channels, leading to different understandings of "health" and "relationship".
So a healthy relationship would be where two or more coincide "enough" with their own belief systems around the meaning of "health" and "relationship" for the shared experiences to tick enough boxes on a mostly ongoing basis, whether they're consciously aware of the process or not.
There's also "healthy relationship" with yourself, whereby our contradictions and paradoxes are integrated "enough" that we enjoy our time far more than worry during our time.
However, interestingly, people who have unhealthy relationships with themselves can often have healthy relationships with another (or more) if those people "top-up" the other person's unhealthiness into healthier modes of living.
I find that a bit codependent and dysfunctional, but I'm also fairly certain that unhealthy people benefit from others who have "extra-health" in the area(s) that are lacking, and although I think those relationships do better as temporary needs rather than lifelong codependencies, if it works, who am I to tell a passive floppy dweeb they have to become a bit more dynamic if the dynamism they need is filled by another (or other permutations) if they both get something out of it?
Makes me vom, but if others grow via it, it's better than feeling like poop.
So - a healthy relationship can be a whole range of things, but needs and desires need to coincide, even if one from a place of lack is topped up by one from a place of abundance.
We change though, so what was once healthy isn't guaranteed to be permanently healthy xxxx"
This is very good, makes sense and I agree with it! |