Generally, inequities might give rise to great admiration in the short term; hence, they can increase the initial love and sexual desire. However, in the long term, significant inequalities become a problem for both sides, whereupon superficial short-term goals (such as being in a relationship with a famous person) become less important. For example, the “higher status” person might begin to show a lack of reciprocity, which will eventually damage the “lower status” person’s love and spur envy, jealousy, and anger.
The situation is made more complicated by the fact that the extent of the gap and the overall comparative value of each partner also play a part. Feeling bad about an inequality in a certain domain, such as intelligence, can disappear if the overall comparative value is perceived to be similar. In these circumstances, the partner’s inferiority in one domain is compensated for by superiority in another. Thus, when people are certain of their worth, they may prefer a partner who is a bit superior to them in one domain and hence will be more beneficial for them. In this case, admiration might be the relevant emotion. For example, in one study, 89 percent of high-achieving men report that they would like to marry or have already married a woman who is as intelligent as they are, or who is more so. These men believe that in marrying such a woman they have made the better deal. However, there is some limit to the desirable gap. Thus, one study found that both men and women pursue partners who are on average about 25 percent more desirable than themselves. People are aware of their own position in the hierarchy and adjust their seeking behavior accordingly, while competing modestly for more desirable mates.31
Interestingly, while constant inequality is unsustainable and emotionally damaging, a shifting power dynamic in a relationship is often what keeps it alive. Such shifting indicates the basic status of equality in the relationship. The profound value here is not in the shifting itself, but in the equality enabling the shift. If this value is not solid, people may always fear that their current inferior status is here to stay. If the equality in status is robust, such fear is unlikely to pan out—taking the current inferiority to be superficial and brief.
Romantic Reciprocity: When the One You Love Doesn’t Love You (as Much)
If equal affection cannot be, / Let the more loving one be me.
W. H. AUDEN
Loving someone who doesn’t love you back is like hugging a cactus. The tighter you hold on, the more it hurts.
UNKNOWN
Unrequited love is one of the saddest of all loving experiences. Some people, however, prefer a lack of reciprocity to a complete lack of love. Despite the importance of reciprocity in love, someone can love her partner without having the partner fully reciprocate that love.
Each partner’s romantic involvement will always be somewhat different than that of the other, but some measure of profound reciprocity should exist in order to prevent other types of inequality that would lead one partner, or both, to consider the difference unfair. When this happens, we can expect to see resentment and a decline in marital quality. Compromising on romantic reciprocity is an example of the “principle of least interest.” The least-interested partner is less committed and has more control over the continuation of the relationship. Accordingly, this partner is often the one who terminates the relationship.32
Unequal romantic involvements are hard to gauge, given the differences in people’s personalities and in the manner and pace that they form loving relationships. Accordingly, inequality in romantic involvement is common, at least in the early years when the romantic relationship is being formed. The difference in romantic involvement can lead to the following two types of circumstances:
1. You are in love with your partner, but your partner does not love you (as much).
2. Your partner is in love with you, but you are not (as) in love with your partner.
Another true story. Albert is a handsome divorced man in his early fifties. He met Debra on a blind date, and they were together for about a year. He left her because although he liked her and enjoyed her company, he did not love her very much. After their separation, he dated a few other women. Then, on his birthday, almost a year later, Debra invited him to dinner at her house, after which he decided to get back together with her. Albert told his friend: “This is the woman I want to live with.” The friend was clearly surprised and reminded Albert that nearly a year before he had said that he didn’t love her enough to be with her. To this Albert replied, “Yes, but she loves me like no one else ever has before and this is what is most important at the end of the day.” In fact, Albert had asked Debra the same question: “Why do you want to be with me, knowing that I do not love you as much as you love me?” Debra replied that she preferred being with a person she loves very much and who might not love her that much, rather than vice versa.
Given these choices, which shoes would you rather be in, Albert’s or Debra’s? My students and friends were divided in opinion. When speaking about unrequited love, people usually refer to painful experiences in which one partner feels no love whatsoever toward the other. However, most cases are not that extreme: both people love each other, but the nature and intensity of their love is different. As in our example, while Debra is madly in love with Albert, Albert just likes her. Albert’s attitude is not without any traces of romantic love. It involves caring and companionship but a lesser degree of romantic intensity. There is a point of love’s robustness (referring to both intensity and profundity) below which it is not worth being together, but Albert’s feelings exceed this point.
Both Albert and Debra have decided on romantic compromise—but it is unclear which compromise is the more painful of the two. The major advantage in Albert’s situation is the great love bestowed upon him; hence, he has greater control of the situation, and there is less probability that Debra will leave him. The disadvantage in Albert’s situation concerns giving up a major human dream: to be madly in love with someone. Albert compromises his present in an effort to secure his future. Debra is more vulnerable, as she has less control over the situation. She gives up control of her future in an effort to enjoy profound love in the present. Personality traits also influence the choices in Albert and Debra’s situations. More egoistic people might opt for Albert‘s choice, while more romantic people often prefer Debra’s choice. Age can be another relevant factor: older people, whose romantic choices are decreasing or who might look for companionate love rather than passionate romantic love, will tend to choose Albert’s situation.
Happy ending. A year after I heard this story, I was informed that Albert got back together with Debra, and they are now a loving couple—although each partner lives in his or her own house.
Concluding Remarks
Comparison is the death of joy.
MARK TWAIN
A major claim of the dialogical approach, which this book adopts, is that the interactions between two partners determine the robustness and quality of the relationship. This chapter, which examines the nature of the romantic connection, provides the foundations for this claim.
The need to belong, which is a vital human need, is expressed in the romantic connection, making this connection hugely important to us. However, romantic belonging does not imply one partner possessing another, as autonomy and equal status are essential in romantic relationships. Belonging is meant here in the sense of mutual acceptance as a natural part of the couple’s joint interactions and development.
The connection between love and marriage has become more complex in contemporary society. Marriage, which is a social framework, was primarily designed to fulfill pragmatic goals related to improving living conditions, including reproduction. Once love, and then personal fulfillment, were introduced as ideals in marriage, the quality of marriages began to rise, but so did the prospects of failing to achieve such love and personal fulfillment. This has led to an increase in marriage breakdown.
I have examined the wish for establishing an enduring, perfect, romantic relationship with a perfect person by distingu
ishing between two senses of “perfect”: flawless and most suitable. In the context of romantic love, I consider the second sense helpful and the first one less so. Moreover, we discussed the comparative and uniqueness approaches to assessing the nature of a partner. Both approaches are common and valuable in choosing a romantic partner, though the uniqueness approach is more significant in long-term romantic relationships.
The issue of the replaceability of the partner is central to romantic love, which involves a certain level of mutual commitment—in some cultures, till death do us part. However, people and circumstances change, and romantic separation is a common phenomenon. Nevertheless, love is not like a library book; you cannot replace your partner every week.
The decision-making mechanism of drifting is not as beneficial as the mechanisms of emotional intuition, intellectual deliberation, and intuitive reasoning. Indeed, in many cases, romantic drifting is problematic and is unable to provide romantic stability and depth. In some other circumstances, drifting is valuable and can enable a slow but steady process of cooking to deepen romantic profundity. Slowly comes, slowly (if at all) goes.
Profound love, whose bread and butter is joint activities and experiences, involves autonomy and equality. When a person perceives his or her partner to be unequal to him or her, envy enters the scene (and possibly extramarital affairs as well). The couple equality should not be a mechanical equality, in which the partners add up each person’s contribution, but rather one that takes account of their different inputs and especially their status equality.
7
Romantic Compromises
And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.
STEVE JOBS
Sometimes the heart needs steering.
ALICIA FLORRICK, in the TV series The Good Wife
Jobs’s rejection of settling, or compromise, is a commendable ideal. It gives our emotions the leading and even exclusive role in making major decisions about work and love. However, this ideal is not practical and, in many circumstances, not appropriate. Combining the heart and the head often works better, because in this combination, emotional regulation is possible. In the US television series The Good Wife, the protagonist, Alicia Florrick, is asked how she makes love outlast passion. “I think it’s not just about the heart,” she says. “Sometimes the heart needs steering.” Florrick is right (even though in later seasons, she has left her husband); sometimes and somehow, you must compromise, as this can ultimately increase your personal flourishing.
In this chapter, we turn down the road of romantic compromises. The major forms of such compromises are (a) giving up alluring alternatives and (b) compromising on the choice of the partner. In this chapter, and throughout the book, I discuss the first type of compromise. (The second type is discussed in the next chapter, which examines the issue of choosing a romantic partner.) Then I discuss the following issues: whether love involves sacrifice or compromise, the distinction between good and bad compromises; the value of being the first, second, or the last lover; being a good-enough partner; and the complexity of romantic compromises.1
The Nature of Romantic Compromises
You can’t always get what you want, But if you try sometime you find, You get what you need.
THE ROLLING STONES
In romantic compromises, we give up a romantic value, such as intense, passionate desire, in exchange for a nonromantic value, like living comfortably. Nevertheless, in our hearts, we keep yearning for the possible that we desire, for the romantic road not taken. We do not know when the yearning heart’s cry is real or when the cry is momentary and can be compensated for as the relationship develops.
Romantic compromise is the most common and painful syndrome of our modern romantic life. It seems that half of all married couples are unable to accept the romantic compromises they have made, and this can result in divorce. Among the rest—those who do remain in their marriages—many feel that they have compromised themselves. The lucky group of couples who are most profoundly in love have hardly needed to steer their hearts; they have been free to follow their loving hearts, which have taken them to the type of relationship they want to sustain.
Being happy with someone does not mean that there is no other person in the world with whom you would be happier. However, finding that person is problematic for multiple reasons. One is the cost of separation, such as the risk of losing your good-enough relationship now; the cost of the search for this ideal partner, which involves investing time and effort in looking for her; and the risk of not finding the more suitable partner soon. If we assume that the interaction between the two partners is most important for establishing romantic profundity, then, to discover this ideal partner, one would need to be with many people before making a decision. This might lead to the discovery of a better-suited partner (although still not necessarily the best in the world). However, if this search endures for fifty years, so that happiness is only achieved, say, at age seventy-eight, the preceding half century could be quite miserable.
Romantic compromises imply a more favorable attitude toward the role of time in romantic love. Thus, some people who were not profoundly in love with their spouse when they got married say that they decided to marry because they hoped that time and greater mutual understanding would deepen their relationship. Sometimes, time does improve a relationship, and the initial compromise is found to be a good one. In other cases, time does not improve, and even worsens, the partner’s view of the spouse, and separation becomes inevitable. Hence, the distinction between romantic intensity and profundity can explain many cases in which the spouse was perceived at the wedding as a romantic compromise intensity-wise, but years of spending time together and sharing intrinsically valuable activities considerably increase the couple’s romantic profundity.
Types of Romantic Compromises
But a woman is checkmated at every turn. Flexible yet powerless to move . . . Whenever a desire impels, there is always a convention that restrains.
GUSTAVE FLAUBERT, Madame Bovary
There are two major types of romantic compromise: (1) compromises on romantic freedom that are made when entering a marriage (or another committed relationship) and (2) compromises on the choice of a partner. In the first type, the major concern is that we might give up alluring possible alternatives while continuing to yearn for them. In the second type, another concern is added: accepting negative aspects of the partner.
When the negativity of the relationship is significant—involving domestic violence, for example—the concern regarding negativity becomes most dominant, and the decision to end the compromise should be taken immediately. However, if the negativity is not severe, then yearning for the possible will usually be the dominant concern. Often the two concerns are combined, and the feeling of romantic compromise is an outcome of both.
Consider the following candid comments made by a married woman: “I didn’t feel that I was compromising too much when I married my husband. Initially, the positives outweighed the negatives by quite a lot. Over time, the negatives started to increase, but it was years of this that caused my feelings of love to start to weaken. I want to improve the negatives, but I also began to realize the value of the alternatives. I go back and forth between these two options!”
Both types of romantic compromise—giving up romantic freedom and accepting a partner with obvious weaknesses—reveal the necessity of compromise in committed romantic relationships. Many couples in less-than-perfect marriages would stay together if they understood that compromise is essential for committed relationships. These people often take an unnecessarily harsh view of their marriage and their partners because they fail to see the value of compromise in a less-than-perfect world. On the other hand, many people stay
in appalling relationships because they do not understand the difference between good and bad compromises. The major issue here is whether the romantic compromise ultimately enhances (or damages) our flourishing in life and love.
Giving Up Alluring Alternatives
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood. And sorry I could not travel both. And be one traveler, long I stood.
ROBERT FROST
What I wanted—I didn’t get; and what I got—I didn’t want.
HANOCH LEVIN, The Labor of Life
The tension between stable boundaries, which secure our comfort zones and within which events are familiar and predictable, and the wish to experience novelty, which is often produced by stepping beyond those boundaries, is basic to human life and the experience of love; this is also the tension between the ideals of freedom and commitment. This tension leads to the major romantic compromise in marriage: giving up romantic freedom, which leads people to feel they are in captivity.2 The greater flexibility of marriages today and the greater feasibility of tempting romantic alternatives have enhanced the role of love in our life and the need for some revisions in the current form of marriage.
The Arc of Love Page 15