I agree strongly with much of this and it still feels like “a mutual happy promise of, ‘I got you’” still mostly captures it for me. Like, IMO a support which pushes me to become better and stronger is kinda what I meant when I phrased the thing as being “I got you.” When a person is less sure of themself or more afraid of abandonment or has whatever other insecurities that people-who-arent-you have, then the strength-giving action can be affirmation/acceptance. (Not endorsement, acceptance.) And with that strength one might move forward and grow.
If I imagine a romantic partner takes deep joy in my joy/triumphs and is thereby motivated to intervene in ways that bring me more joy/triumph, it doesn’t feel like there is much missing there. That’s the good shit. That’s what “I got you” was supposed to mean, I think. (And I won’t claim that growth is a universal value but I sure take joy and a sense of triumph in my own growth so an ideal partner for me would help me with that as I help them with what they value...which is likely to be similar if I’ve chosen well.)
Notes:
I feel warm and fuzzy about being with people who take this stance toward me even if they aren’t very capable of making good on it very often. I like them and want them around. Putting energy into them at the expense of potential other who could deliver on the Good Thing in addition to wanting it, is very plausibly a mistake. I mention it to point out that this sort of feeling could cause confusion when you go looking for the dynamic in partnered folks. People can be instinctively chasing this ideal and even think they have it if they don’t distinguish their partner’s stance from their partners ability to deliver on it.
I think of this as the aspirational ideal. I think that to the extent that a romantic partnership fails at this dynamic, the relationship is worse for it. I think that for maybe most people, it is very hard to find a close approximation of this in part because they haven’t named it and don’t totally understand what they’re looking for, but are nonetheless usually attracted to approximations of or signals in the way of this. (This applies to people looking for partnership. People can also look for other forms of relationships, but they won’t have what I think is the main value of a partnership/romantic-relationship.)
I agree strongly with much of this and it still feels like “a mutual happy promise of, ‘I got you’” still mostly captures it for me. Like, IMO a support which pushes me to become better and stronger is kinda what I meant when I phrased the thing as being “I got you.” When a person is less sure of themself or more afraid of abandonment or has whatever other insecurities that people-who-arent-you have, then the strength-giving action can be affirmation/acceptance. (Not endorsement, acceptance.) And with that strength one might move forward and grow.
If I imagine a romantic partner takes deep joy in my joy/triumphs and is thereby motivated to intervene in ways that bring me more joy/triumph, it doesn’t feel like there is much missing there. That’s the good shit. That’s what “I got you” was supposed to mean, I think. (And I won’t claim that growth is a universal value but I sure take joy and a sense of triumph in my own growth so an ideal partner for me would help me with that as I help them with what they value...which is likely to be similar if I’ve chosen well.)
Notes:
I feel warm and fuzzy about being with people who take this stance toward me even if they aren’t very capable of making good on it very often. I like them and want them around. Putting energy into them at the expense of potential other who could deliver on the Good Thing in addition to wanting it, is very plausibly a mistake. I mention it to point out that this sort of feeling could cause confusion when you go looking for the dynamic in partnered folks. People can be instinctively chasing this ideal and even think they have it if they don’t distinguish their partner’s stance from their partners ability to deliver on it.
I think of this as the aspirational ideal. I think that to the extent that a romantic partnership fails at this dynamic, the relationship is worse for it. I think that for maybe most people, it is very hard to find a close approximation of this in part because they haven’t named it and don’t totally understand what they’re looking for, but are nonetheless usually attracted to approximations of or signals in the way of this. (This applies to people looking for partnership. People can also look for other forms of relationships, but they won’t have what I think is the main value of a partnership/romantic-relationship.)