PHKaplok Kaplok
Forum Guru
It can seem very confusing why certain long-term relationships survive and some donāt. It can - from afar - look as if itās the most cruel and alarming sort of lottery. Trying to explain love to a child or a visitor from another planet promises to be a perplexing matter indeed: all couples on their wedding day are united in wanting to make things work. Then, for reasons beyond anyoneās comprehension, some of them simply seem to dissolve and others donāt.
To remove some of the terrifying element of apparent chance (and encourage us to work on the right aspects of our own couples), it may be helpful to become deliberately reductive about the real reasons why breakups occur.
We need - in this regard - first to discount certain causes that gain far too much airtime relative to their actual likelihoods. Of course, sometimes people break up because one party wants a younger partner. Or because they want better ***. Or because they are seeking a more exciting companion. Or because their hobbies or political views have drifted apart. Or because things have - somehow - grown āstale.ā
But letās quickly try to reduce the role we give to such explanatory factors: given the costs of break-ups, given the massive investments that people make in being together, given the chaos generated if there are children, one can assert with a high degree of confidence that almost no one ever splits up for such familiar reasons.
The real reason lies elsewhere; the real reason for break up lies in one or both spouseās sense that they have not been heard, that something very important to them has been disregarded, that their point of view has not at a fundamental level been acknowledged and honoured. It doesnāt matter what the subject of this non-hearing happens to be: it could be that they havenāt been heard about their views on money, or on the way the children are being brought up, or on how their weekends should be managed, or on how intimacy occurs or doesnāt occur.
Itās feeling unheard for our differences that is unbearable; itās never the presence of differences per se.
We donāt break up because a partner doesnāt agree with us. We could stand not getting what we want. We could stand a partner who votes another way than we do. Or who is no longer as young as they once were. Or who has annoying friends. Or different tastes in holidays. What we canāt stand is someone who blocks us when we try to articulate how troublesome we find these areas of divergence; when our unique way of looking at existence seems a matter of basic indifference. That is too lonely and enraging to bear. Itās better to be single than unseen; after all, the unseen are alone anyway, whatever their ostensible relationship status.
There is a big difference between a partner not doing what we want and a partner not hearing what we want. Itās entirely possible that one would remain with someone who doesnāt share most of our interests - so long as they happen to accept, and signal an understanding of, how much these interests matter to us. It would be possible for us to live with someone who doesnāt want the same sort of sĆ©x as we do (or wants no sĆ©x at all), so long as they can at points see matters from our position - and can give a modicum of empathy to our hopes and longings. We could be with someone whose needs for affection run in a different direction, so long as they have the courage to listen to how ours operate. We donāt need partners to agree with us on everything; we need them to give off signs that they can accept the scale and legitimacy of our vision. āI understandā is the phrase that could single-handedly rescue more long-term relationships than any number of anniversary celebrations or therapy sessions; it deserves to known as the most romantic phrase in existence.
There is a lot of hope in this thesis. If we want to stay together, we donāt need to be exceptionally beautiful or rich. We donāt need to rely on chance. We donāt have to have brilliant sĆŖx or a friction free alignments of interests.
We just need to make sure that we are people who listen; who when the partner has something very important they need to get across to us, can bear to take things on board, can bear to acknowledge an opposite position, can bear to say: āI can see this matters a lot to youā¦ and I will try my hardest to think about it and see what I can do about it.ā From here, it really doesnāt matter if things radically change or not; the vital work will have been done - and the relationship will have been assured.
People described as ādefensiveā may have a thousand charms. But we should know that the most flawed open person is preferable to the most seemingly accomplished defensive one. The person we should settle down with isnāt the most attractive or the cleverest, itās the one who feels no pride or compunction in readily saying: āI can hear what you are saying and how much this matters a lot to youā¦ I get it...ā Or, ābecause I love you, this makes me curious, tell me moreā¦ā This person will surely one day annoy or frustrate us mightily (everyone does). Weāll just be highly unlikely ever to want to break up with them.
To remove some of the terrifying element of apparent chance (and encourage us to work on the right aspects of our own couples), it may be helpful to become deliberately reductive about the real reasons why breakups occur.
We need - in this regard - first to discount certain causes that gain far too much airtime relative to their actual likelihoods. Of course, sometimes people break up because one party wants a younger partner. Or because they want better ***. Or because they are seeking a more exciting companion. Or because their hobbies or political views have drifted apart. Or because things have - somehow - grown āstale.ā
But letās quickly try to reduce the role we give to such explanatory factors: given the costs of break-ups, given the massive investments that people make in being together, given the chaos generated if there are children, one can assert with a high degree of confidence that almost no one ever splits up for such familiar reasons.
The real reason lies elsewhere; the real reason for break up lies in one or both spouseās sense that they have not been heard, that something very important to them has been disregarded, that their point of view has not at a fundamental level been acknowledged and honoured. It doesnāt matter what the subject of this non-hearing happens to be: it could be that they havenāt been heard about their views on money, or on the way the children are being brought up, or on how their weekends should be managed, or on how intimacy occurs or doesnāt occur.
Itās feeling unheard for our differences that is unbearable; itās never the presence of differences per se.
We donāt break up because a partner doesnāt agree with us. We could stand not getting what we want. We could stand a partner who votes another way than we do. Or who is no longer as young as they once were. Or who has annoying friends. Or different tastes in holidays. What we canāt stand is someone who blocks us when we try to articulate how troublesome we find these areas of divergence; when our unique way of looking at existence seems a matter of basic indifference. That is too lonely and enraging to bear. Itās better to be single than unseen; after all, the unseen are alone anyway, whatever their ostensible relationship status.
There is a big difference between a partner not doing what we want and a partner not hearing what we want. Itās entirely possible that one would remain with someone who doesnāt share most of our interests - so long as they happen to accept, and signal an understanding of, how much these interests matter to us. It would be possible for us to live with someone who doesnāt want the same sort of sĆ©x as we do (or wants no sĆ©x at all), so long as they can at points see matters from our position - and can give a modicum of empathy to our hopes and longings. We could be with someone whose needs for affection run in a different direction, so long as they have the courage to listen to how ours operate. We donāt need partners to agree with us on everything; we need them to give off signs that they can accept the scale and legitimacy of our vision. āI understandā is the phrase that could single-handedly rescue more long-term relationships than any number of anniversary celebrations or therapy sessions; it deserves to known as the most romantic phrase in existence.
There is a lot of hope in this thesis. If we want to stay together, we donāt need to be exceptionally beautiful or rich. We donāt need to rely on chance. We donāt have to have brilliant sĆŖx or a friction free alignments of interests.
We just need to make sure that we are people who listen; who when the partner has something very important they need to get across to us, can bear to take things on board, can bear to acknowledge an opposite position, can bear to say: āI can see this matters a lot to youā¦ and I will try my hardest to think about it and see what I can do about it.ā From here, it really doesnāt matter if things radically change or not; the vital work will have been done - and the relationship will have been assured.
People described as ādefensiveā may have a thousand charms. But we should know that the most flawed open person is preferable to the most seemingly accomplished defensive one. The person we should settle down with isnāt the most attractive or the cleverest, itās the one who feels no pride or compunction in readily saying: āI can hear what you are saying and how much this matters a lot to youā¦ I get it...ā Or, ābecause I love you, this makes me curious, tell me moreā¦ā This person will surely one day annoy or frustrate us mightily (everyone does). Weāll just be highly unlikely ever to want to break up with them.