Marriage and Deal-Breakers

      Marriage is a very complex concept.  We tend to think about it emotionally, which makes it difficult to conceptualize.  At least, however, it is a contract between two people which binds them as partners with mutual obligations and responsibilities.  We publicly state that this contract is "forever" and indissoluble, but we have certain unacknowledged conditions that allow the breaking of the contract.  These "deal-breakers" are almost never discussed because to discuss them would destroy the romantic fantasy of eternal love.
     We do sometimes consider what would happen if the contract is broken.  Pre-nuptial agreements are an example.  They spell out the division of goods and services between the former partners if the contract is terminated.  Although they are clearly useful, they are extremely unpopular with couples who are "in love", because they are inconsistent with the romantic fantasy that characterizes the beginnings of most marriages.
     We don't, as a rule, consider the conditions under which we consider the contract to be broken and terminated.  "Deal-breakers" are specific behaviors and conditions under which one partner is unwilling to continue the marital contract.  We like to pretend that nothing could make us unwilling to stay married, but this is clearly purely fantasy.  In fact, the majority of marriages end in divorce, so it is quite unrealistic to pretend this cannot happen.
     Therefore it is extremely important to consider exactly what "deal-breakers" are for each member of the contract.  When they are not considered they don't go away.  They are simply not discussed.  In the majority of divorces, the reasons for dissolving the marital contract are accumulated over a period of time.  They are, in fact, based on accumulating increasing negative feelings, which people typically describe as "being fed up".
     "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.  Being "fed up" requires a partner to accumulate instances of intolerable behavior, which is tolerated on the grounds that at some time in the future the other partner will change.  The amount of negative feelings carried by the first partner must accumulate until the breaking point, at which time there is typically an explosion of feelings used to stimulate the partners into breaking up, usually a very anxiety-provoking situation in itself.
     Often the partners are not clear about what they are beginning to consider "intolerable".  Frequently the transgressing partner is not aware of exactly what their partner is finding unacceptable. Often the first partner is not clearly aware of what it is they will not be able to live with.  The ambiguity and uncertainty continue until some event "the last straw" and has crossed the line.
     It is easier to cross the line when you don't know exactly where the the line is.  Neither partner may be clear as to how close they are to marital disaster until the line is crossed.  To spell out where the boundary is, is to commit yourself to an action you cannot easily imagine in advance.  Yet without knowing the boundary it is far easier to cross, and once crossed it may be irrevocable.
     "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.  Whether boundaries are easily imaginable or emotionally uncomfortable is not a good reason to ignore them.  When you are contracting for a life-long partnership, it is extremely important that you know the conditions under which your partner will no longer be willing to remain in the partnership.  To do that, each partner has to carefully consider exactly what their personal boundaries are and to what degree, if any, they are willing to act on their crossing.
     "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.  For example, a deal-breaker for Partner A might be sexual infidelity by B.  If A is willing to be clear that such behavior is unacceptable, then A is committed to divorce if B is unfaithful.  If A is not willing to be committed to divorce under such conditions, sexual fidelity is not a boundary for A.  When a boundary is set, the person setting the boundary must be willing to take action or else it is not in fact a "deal-breaker".
     Deal-breakers do not have to be mutual or "equal".  What is a deal-breaker for A may not be so for B.  What is important is that when A sets a boundary, B knows exactly what the consequences will be.  There is no boundary-testing behavior that will be acceptable.  Of course, no one in the throes of romantic love wants to commit themselves to ending their romantic relationship under specific conditions.  However, without such specification, boundary testing will more often lead to divorce.  "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.
     It's unlikely that at any given moment a person can specify in advance all the possible deal-breakers.  Conditions can arise in the future that could not be anticipated; life-changing events can occur that lead to unimaginable conditions.  People can change in unexpected ways.  A partner can become a drug-abuser or a physical or emotional bully.  However, such possibilities can be considered even if they seem absurd in the present.  They need to be considered whenever they arise.  "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.
     It would be a very difficult conversation to have, considering the deal-breakers and their consequences.  Each partner has to know something about their own boundaries and limits of their tolerance, no matter how deep their feelings for the other.  That takes more self-knowledge than most young people have, which is why it is so difficult for early marriages to endure.  Difficult or not, the attempt is an important one.  Deal-breakers should not only be discussed before marriage, they should be discussed as soon as one partner becomes aware they are an issue, and should be discussed before they are irrevocably crossed.

A note on specific deal-breakers and issues related to them will follow.

Lies in relationships, an expansion

Honesty destabilizes, for good or for ill.  It creates the possibility of change.  But change can be in many flavors and directions.  For instance, confessing to an extramarital affair will very likely result in substantial change. However, change in itself is by its nature unpredictable.  When we tell the truth, something new can and will happen.  There is no guarantee that the change will be for the better, depending on how you define "better".

Psychotherapists and counselors are change agents.  We are hired by people who are troubled and unhappy to promote change in them and in their situation.  Since they are already unhappy, change is somewhat more likely to be in a positive direction.  So we tell the truth and encourage our patients to tell the truth.  This honesty can destabilize their inner world and ultimately their relationships, including with the therapist.  Therapists are trained in keeping the changes from damaging the relationship with the therapist, although this is not always possible. The relationship frequently becomes uncomfortable and produces anxiety, sometimes in both the patient and the therapist.  Sometimes the discomfort is great enough to cause the relationship to end.

The therapist is also trained to detect dishonesty and to confront it, so that change can take place.  People are frequently dishonest, even with themselves, and being confronted with the truth allows for growth to occur.  A good working assumption is that recognizing the truth in oneself results in positive change.  It is also necessary for the therapist to be honest.  That does not mean the therapist says everything in his or her mind.  The therapist has the additional obligation to consider the kind of changes and discomfort that arise and to avoid those that might be harmful to the therapy.

The therapist is obligated to be kind as well as honest.  While this is a good idea for all human relationships, it is especially true in the therapeutic relationship.  Therapy is not a friendship with equal and mutual obligations.  Therapists are not there to get better, themselves.  The relationship is not balance or equal, which is one of the reasons money changes hands.

Honesty in relationships also promotes anxiety, in that the changes that occur are not predictable, and it is easy for most of us to predict bad outcomes.  Constant growth and the anxiety that accompanies it would be increasingly uncomfortable.  Sometimes we need stability rather than constant change.  Yet if a relationship becomes too stable and "comfortable", it can stagnate and become monotonous, even boring.   We seek a balance between comfort and the excitement and intimacy of growth.

So how do we arrange stability in an intimate relationship?  We tell lies of omission.  In other words, we choose our honesty with care.  We have to respect the right and need of the others in our relationships for some stability and comfort.  Choosing which things to talk about and when requires considerable skill and sensitivity.  All the parties in a relationship are not equally available for change all the time.  And some topics require absolute (and kind) honesty if the relationship is to survive.

There is no simple formula for this balancing act.  In psychotherapy it's relatively easy, because the client is there for change, not comfort.  But in intimate relationships like marriage the comfort of both parties must be considered.

Social media and relationships

As we have allowed more and more of our previously "private" lives become public, we are  more and more vulnerable.  Not only are our "secrets" becoming known, we are more open to attacks by others which can be highly personal.

It's much easier to be cruel when we don't have to face directly the object of our cruelty.  "Trolling" has become much more common, and people  say things  on websites that they would never say face to face.  It's easier to believe whatever we want to believe about someone when we don't have all the information.

Typed information is more abstract than face to face contact.  We don't have facial expressions  and voice tones;  we don't have the immediate feedback that comes from a direct reaction to something we have said or done.  It's easier to harm others when we don't actually see them being harmed.  A number of psychological experiments have confirmed this idea.

The cruelty of war becomes easier when we don't actually see those we hurt.  Over the years our weapons have allowed us to be at a greater and greater distance, physically and psychologically, from our victims.  They become "targets" or "casualties".  We dehumanize our victims.  Could we have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima if we had seen all the faces of those we killed, knew their histories, how much their mothers loved them, how their partner's hearts were broken?

Now we see the same behaviors on small scale on  the internet.  We attack, we try to hurt, we urge people  to kill themselves, we encourage damaging behaviors... it's all "out there", it's not real, they are just targets in a video game.

Positive relationships conducted via computer are equally biased and distorted.  Fantasies about others, positive and negative, flourish best in the absence of specific information.  Anybody can be flawless and wonderful if they choose to be so, and if the person to whom they are providing information chooses to believe them.  Fantasies don't like reality.  Nobody belches or passes gas in a fantasy.

People  even decide to  get married based on a series of internet conversations.  People  choosing to believe what they are told via computer are easy marks, both financially and emotionally.  Not only is a sucker born every minute, as  Barnum  allegedly said, someone is out there to take advantage of the sucker.

I myself am going to be a multimillionaire soon.  I have to make my bank account open to this Prince from Nigeria and he's going to give me millions of dollars.  I can hardly wait. 

Love or like

The best predictor for longevity in marriage is not romantic love.  The best predictors are liking and respect.  Marriages based on liking and mutual respect tend to wear well. Over time, with respect and like "romantic" affection increases.  Many years ago, marriages were frequently based on convenience and reliability.  Many were arranged by families or "matchmakers". Many couples met for the first time on their wedding day.  Western cultures, as a whole, did not see "love" as a necessary requirement.  It is only with the dawn of fiction in literature and other media that "love" was even a desirable emotion; more often it was seen as leading to disaster.

Attachment is a naturally-occurring phenomenon.  When couples are in close proximity over a period of time, and when feelings are discussed and treated with respect, attachment and mutual affection grow naturally.  This is sometimes referred to as the "Stockholm syndrome", but it simply refers to this basic fact of human nature.  We naturally become attached to others when we share feelings, goals and respect.

So if a marriage is based on respect and liking, affection grows naturally.

However, movies, tv and fiction have emphasized the importance of "romantic" love.  Such love is dramatic, fierce and passionate.  It makes a better story and better movie.  Unfortunately, being based on fiction, it does not last. In a movie or book it only has to last a few hours. But real life is different.  Fantasies don't survive real life.  The bubble pops, usually sooner rather than later.

 The current divorce rate is evidence of that.  Romantically-based marriages only last if over time another basis is found, one based on respect and liking, and the honest sharing of feelings, good and bad.  Romance may get us into a marriage and keep us there for   few months or a few years, but it alone will not and cannot keep us in a  marriage. We need the Stockholm syndrome.

We expect too much from marriage.  Earlier in history the marriage partnership was based on expediency, usefulness, even help in surviving.  How the partners felt about each other was no more important than in any other business partnership.  Business partners did not need to hold hands or cling together in the moonlight to the sound of violins.  They needed to trust each other, to respect each other and value the other person as a person, which meant that how the other felt was important and deserved respect.  Usually affection between the partners  grew over time, although it is true that sometimes it did not.

People are now encouraged to believe that their marriage should be permanently exciting and emotionally fulfilling, with all (or essentially all) of their needs being met by their partner and their relationship.  This is a huge burden of expectation and demand.  None of us can meet every need or fulfill every dream for our partner, and our marriages should not stand or fail based on fulfilling this impossible expectation.  Hopefully what we do gain from a healthy relationship  is far more  satisfying than our ability to mutually act out one another's romantic fantasies.

Love, like every other emotion, comes and goes.  It never remains constant, except in fiction.  In real life we love one another more at one time than another, and it is rarely a symmetrical emotion.  The Stockholm syndrome insures it will return if we continue to respect and communicate with one another.  Commitment should not be a decision based on the sand of emotion.  It should be based on the rock of respect. 

Lies of omission in relationships:Part 2

To understand the effects of lies, both overt and covert on relationships, it will  be helpful to review the communication rules that govern the experience of closeness and intimacy.  In Transactional Analysis it is proposed that closeness and intimacy are determined by some specific behavioral rules:  1)  When person A expresses an emotion accurately in  kind and degree, and 2) when person B acknowledges person A's statement in both kind and degree,  then 3) Person A will experience greater emotional closeness to  Person B.  It should  be noted that feelings of closeness are not necessarily (or even usually) symmetrical.  Person A may experience greater closeness or distance to Person B than B does to A.  The degree of closeness A experiences appears to be related to how important A's feelings are to A.  For instance, if A says he "really likes cheese sandwiches a lot", and B responds that she "understands exactly how much that liking is", the amount of increase in closeness A experiences is likely to be a tiny one.

This set of observationally-based rules are easily tested out.  Consider your reaction if you tell someone that you are very angry, and they look blankly at you or tell you they don't  believe you.  Another example: after an angry argument many couples report unusually satisfying sexual relationships.  The Stockholm syndrome is a good example of the development of intimacy between captor and prisoner when feelings are expressed clearly and acknowledged correctly, even when the feelings are  (at least initially) negative ones.

With this in mind consider the effects of directly lying (about emotions, specifically) on relationships.  If A tells B incorrectly about a feeling, no matter how B replies, no intimacy is gained.  In fact, an increase in psychological distance is likely to be noted.  If A tells B correctly about a feeling, and B replies inappropriately, no increase in intimacy is experienced. Again, an increase in experienced distance will occur.

When A lies by omission about feelings, A will feel more distant.  A's behavior may change and be noted by B, who will not likely understand what is happening.  To the extent that the emotions are "important" ones to A, A's distance will increase in proportion to their importance.  As an example, consider the following:  A is angry with B but doesn't want to admit it.  B may or may not notice, but in any case A experiences more distance.

It's clear, I hope, that dishonest, unexpressed, denied or concealed feelings can have a profound effect on a relationship, especially if over time the same behaviors are repeated.  Frequently the lies of omission are an attempt to maintain stability in the relationship although at the cost of loss of intimacy.  Intimacy.distance is never static nor symmetrical, and people negotiate for an optimal level of closeness and distance in a never-ending dance.

Manipulating our own emotions

The two disorders most commonly treated in the field of mental health are anxiety and depression.  Depression is always a disorder;  there is no degree of depression that is healthy or beneficial in any way.  Anxiety is different in that respect.  High levels of anxiety, especially in the absence of any real threat, is clearly dysfunctional.  Very low levels of anxiety, however, are not healthy either.

For instance, walking down a dark alley at 2 am jingling your keys and whistling blithely is probably not in the service of survival.  We need some anxiety to make us wary and watchful. In the absence of any anxiety at all, it would be easy to forget to make sure your doors are locked at night, or that you have changed the batteries in your smoke-detector.  A small amount of anxiety can "motivate" you, or at the least trigger your attention to potentially difficult situations.

We use anxiety to push ourselves (in the absence of cognitive motivation) to take precautions against over-spending on unnecessary items or not paying our income taxes.  We make ourselves mildly uncomfortable to get ourselves out of our comfort zone and take action when it is useful.  We do this by imagining potential problems in the near future, which triggers an anxious reaction.  For instance, we tell ourselves that if we spend too much, we won't be able to make the car payment and that the dealer will repossess it.  That thought arouses our anxiety, and we then make a plan to do something about it, and as a result our anxiety decreases. Or we might tell ourselves that having too much to drink at the office party might result in behaving badly enough to affect our employment, so we decide to limit ourselves to one drink.

Recently a patient told me that when she hasn't had any fun or excitement for a while, she begins to get restless, and thinks about "going  shopping", which is always fun for her.  Her income is extremely limited, and she is aware that if she spends much money she could have a serious problem in meeting her bills and rent.  So she tells herself something like the following:  "It doesn't matter if I spend too much, I can always work it out somehow.  It will be fine! Stop worrying!  Nothing bad will happen!".   As a result her anxiety drops.  Since she has always used her anxiety to control herself (instead of cognitive decision-making) there is now nothing to stop her, and she spends recklessly.  

Most of us use our anxiety to limit and control our behavior, so when we drive our anxiety down through denial and rationalization, we lose our limits and our willingness to control our behavior.  The more we rely on emotion and "motivation" to control ourselves, the more unsafe and unwise our behavior can become when our anxiety is too low.  Of course there are other ways to lower anxiety below the useful point:  we can drink too much or use drugs.  Even under these latter conditions (drugs and/or drink) we have used self-talk to deny the negative possibilities resulting from drinking or using drugs, so our anxiety-provoked defenses become non-operative.

An alternative is to make cognitively-based decisions.  These are decisions reached through rational and non-emotional thought.  They require data-based information and accurate appraisals of possible outcomes.  When we need to make a decision, we can set our emotions aside and consider the real issues and potential outcomes, not just what we want to imagine. We can take  a longer view of possible outcomes and consider them as well.

I remember telling my children when they were in the early years of adolescence that the time to make a decision about sexual behavior was at home in the afternoon and sitting in the living room, not in the back seat of a car after kissing and fondling for an hour or when under the influence of alcohol.  Emotion-based decisions are always remarkably short-sighted. That's fine when you're choosing a movie to watch or a flavor of icecream.

The Point System in Love and Marriage

Perhaps you think that couples rarely keep track of good deeds and jobs well done by either party. Or maybe you believe that couples keep only enough of a rough balance so that chores and tasks don't get too lopsided. Well, in an ideal world that would be the case, But in this world there is a system that women use to track the affectional part of the relationship, which I call the Point System. Points are used to keep track of how loving the male partner is with his woman. If this sounds a little one-sided, that's because it is. Men don't track women's romantic attachment. They simply assume it is there.

Men are aware, however, that they are being tracked. Points are being counted. We have a general sense of how well or how poorly we are doing. Interestingly, relatively soon after the marriage ceremony, we begin to have a vague and uncomfortable feeling that we are not doing something right. This is correct. I will explain how this comes about, from having had years of marriage (to various women) and from years of listening to them as a therapist.

Women keep a mental account of how they are treated by us. When we do something that strikes them as a positive, loving thing, we get a plus point. When we do something that strikes them us uncaring or even unkind, we lose a point. So much is obvious. What is not obvious is that we lose points whenever we merely do the expectedly nice things. To gain a point or even to stay even we have to go beyond the call of duty.

For instance, on Valentine's Day, taking her out to dinner and giving her a nice and loving (not comic) card gets you no negative points. It does NOT give you positive points, because you have not gone above and beyond the expected. You have only done your duty, and that's a zero-point operation. We lose points whenever we might have done something especially nice, without having been hinted at or coaxed, and we didn't. As an example, a female patient told me that her husband had driven the car right past a road-side stand selling her favorite flowers, and he didn't stop. He lost points. Being loving and affectionate while expecting or hoping for sex later is at best a zero point operation, and if egregious enough, is a major point-coster.

It should be clear that we men will spend our lives with points steadily going down. By the time we have been together a while, the points are generally overwhelmingly negative, which results in irritated, caustic and resentful behavior by the women in our lives. This does not cost them points, of course. Responding to their negative behavior in an irritated way costs us points. Treating them nicely when they have said something caustic is just a zero-point option. Just reading this blog to her has undoubtedly cost me a bunch of points.

It's technically possible, I suppose, to have at some time a positive point balance. It is not possible, however, to keep it positive. It's just a matter of time.

The fallacy of romantic love

We had several marriages in the family in the last year or so. Grown children, grandchildren, all in love, all getting married. It's charming and even touching to watch. They promise to love and honor one another. They clearly feel passionately about one another. They announce that they will love each other forever.

From that last sentence, you might easily think that love has something do with getting married and with staying married. We're in an age of romance. We like the idea of passionate feelings sweeping inhibitions away. We like the fantasy that such feelings can endure "forever". People "fall in love" and get married on the basis of such passion and frequently expect to stay married on that basis. The success rate for that belief system is not very high. We have begun to recognize that romantic love is not a good basis or predictor for a lasting marriage. In fact, we might find ourselves singing "What's love got to do with it?"

Part of our difficulty, as usual, lies in the multiple meanings of the word "love". Romantic love is a feeling, and like all feelings, waxes and wanes with time. Usually it includes a fantasy of a perfect union, a closeness unmatched since before our birth. It thrives on mutual admiration and on the capacity to ignore or discount flaws in the other person. Being thought lovable, even being thought perfect and wonderful, was (and is) a pretty intoxicating experience. In particular, when the participants had previously fairly low self-esteem, being in a "romantic" relationship in which they were seen as flawless and perfect had a disproportionately huge effect on their ego. That kind of love, romantic love, can be addictive in the extreme. When romantic love is combined with sexual passion it is one of the most exciting and gratifying experiences one can have.

However, romantic love is not only a feeling that passes and changes as feelings always do, it is based on a fantasy of perfection and mutual adoration that can't be sustained in the real world. It doesn't take long until the image of perfection begins to show signs of damage. When marriages are based on total mutual admiration, they eventually (and usually sooner rather than later) fail. Small wonder that when reality re-enters the picture and the illusion of personal perfection is lost, the person may find him/herself looking for a fix elsewhere. The result is frequently infidelity or perhaps divorce and serial monogamy. The search for the fantasied ideal romantic partner can go on episodically forever.

People in a romantically loving relationship don't necessarily really love each other as individuals, flawed and human. They love the admiration they receive, and they are passionately grateful to the other person for loving them and for the huge ego-boost that such admiration causes. When one or the other person begins to focus on the flaws in their partner, the fantasy of being perfect in their eyes is destroyed, and the disappointment and accompanying anger is sometimes surprising and sudden. All relationships based solely on romantic love are doomed to failure. There is nothing wrong with romantic love. It is simply a terrible basis for an enduring, long-term relationship.

There are other kinds of love than "romantic". It's a shame we use the same word for both unhealthy ("romantic") relationships and the most positive and healthy relationship two people can have. The confusion causes many wrecked lives and much misery. Healthy forms of love have been described many times and in a variety of ways, which I won't bother repeating here. It suffices to say that when we use the word "love" in a healthy relationship, it includes the willingness and even desire to put the other person's welfare in a place of equal importance to one's own. Healthy loving relationships are intimate, trusting and affectionate. Healthy love involves a commitment, not a temporary feeling, and because commitments can be permanent, can remain constant. Loving feelings come, go and return in a healthy relationship but the committed relationship remains constant.

In our romantic age, "falling in love" seems to be a prerequisite for marriage. However, it wasn't that long ago (in my grandparents' youth) when couples married first and developed a lasting relationship later. Many or most of those marriages lasted the lifetime of the partners. "Arranged marriages" didn't require romantic love. They were working partnerships in a difficult world that helped both partners survive on a higher level than they could have achieved alone. The workload was divided between them. In many cases the partners developed a strong, respectful and genuinely loving relationship over time. In other cases, the partners sought the romantic love to which they felt entitled in other relationships outside the marriage.

Among other things, successful marriages are business partnerships. As in all partnerships, workloads must be balanced and rebalanced. Mutual trust and respect is required and have to be earned as well as given. Happily married partners have open-eyed, realistic love AND like for each other, and such liking is harder to find than romantic love by a long shot. Liking one's partner, as I am considering it here, is something that necessarily develops over time. When couples have a romantic love to start their relationship, perhaps the fantasy can buy them the time it takes to fall in "like" with their partner, and then the relationship has a chance at enduring. However, romantic love is a weak reed to lean on; it has an expiration date somewhere in the near future.