December 2004 / January 2005

Join AHP to receive the complete Perspective Magazine by mail!

Romantic Relationships
A Model for Compatibility

Kevin Dawson

INTRODUCTION
A Plea for Prescreening

In the initial excitement of a relationship, chemistry often dominates to the point of excluding reason. “Isn’t that the fun of it?” many argue in the midst of an overwhelming emotional rush. While infatuation can mature into a more stable bond, the initial relationship is typically characterized by affective idealism. Too, in today’s culture, sexuality is usually introduced into a new relationship long before the couple actually experiences the true self of the other. Thus, much of the first image one holds of the other is based upon a mixture of perceptual stereotypes, expectations from one’s own frame of reference, the powerful chemistry of sexuality, and the excitement of something new. The authentic essence of the other does not emerge immediately.

Each person may carry perfectionistic expectations into the relationship. How can reality do anything but disappoint? The real self of the other surfaces with a crash. Disaster awaits if a mature relationship does not emerge to fill the voids left from unmet expectations.

Once negatives emerge in a relationship, they can be as equally unrealistic as the original idealizations of the other. In fact, one may find the other appalling. What was once glossed over becomes obtuse. A new mindset can emerge, where they begin looking for negatives in the other person, actually expecting negatives. Therefore, it is small surprise that in Michigan in 2004, there were 65,000 marriages—and more than 37,000 divorces (A. R. Moses, “Lawmakers propose bills to curb state divorce rate,” AP, 2004). The need for couples to do premarital work and prescreening is obvious.

If couples would take enough time to educate themselves on the simple concepts that this model presents, much suffering could be averted. For those already involved in an intimate relationship, it can be used as a guide to identify obstacles to intimacy in the hope of reaching toward the growth potential of the relationship. Familiarity with simple relationship dynamics can ground expectations, and thus perceptions, in a more reality-oriented context. It has been said that one step closer to reality is one step closer to sanity.

This model can be used in couples therapy and education, especially premarital learning, by anyone who wants to find answers to the question: “What’s keeping us apart?”

THE MODEL

Romantic relationships may exist on many levels, but the four principal ones are the Emotional, Spiritual, Sexual, and Intellectual. Nearly any interactions between couples will be in one of these areas. If one area lacks structural integrity, then the other three will shift, and an imbalance will be created. If one level is underdeveloped or damaged, the other levels suffer. The levels are not hierarchical. Each is of equal importance; none supersedes another.

This model of discreet, identifiable components is integrated into an interdependent whole, in almost a Tantric balancing structure (B. Peay, “Tantric Balancing,” Kundalini Resource Center, 1997, hmt.com/ kundalini/tantrab1.html). A closer look will support this assertion.

EMOTIONAL LEVEL

This level comprises three major components: trust, tolerance, and supportiveness.

The Challenge of Trust
Trust encompasses many areas. The primary one encountered and often violated in our culture is that of fidelity. Does one trust the other not to violate the sanctum of the bond of exclusivity? In American culture, a breach of this covenant is often seen as a betrayal of intimacy, a disregard for the sacredness of the most inner privacy shared between them. One wants to hold the highest position of importance, above all others, in their partner’s heart and life. Should that intimacy be shared with an outsider, it cheapens the relationship and the special intense closeness shared between the two of them. Compromising exclusivity makes the relationship less special and exceptional, more emotionally prosaic. Sexual fidelity is seen as a validation of the private, vulnerable, and sacred couple bond.

In American culture, women especially are scripted to equate fidelity with intimacy, where men, in general, receive more permission to view sex recreationally, without as strong an emotional attachment. Thus, a fundamental incompatibility exists in heterosexual romance. However, men may develop sensitivity toward their partner’s needs, and embrace a commonality of values, once they recognize the virtues of this. This is typically not emphasized to men in our society, yet once learned and understood, can supplant or modify macho bravado and promiscuity.

Sometimes trust is endangered not from the behaviors of one’s mate, but rather from one’s own insecurities. Questions, then accusations, inevitably arise regarding the other partner’s behavior, whether founded or not. Denials from the accused partner do not address the fundamental problem; they are likely to elicit anger, rather than reassurance. The insecure partner’s suspicion is often deeply rooted in an expectation of emotional abuse and betrayal, rejection, and a negative comparative analysis of themselves to other potential mates (more commonly called “jealousy”). It is actually a crisis of self-esteem (V. Farmer, “Jealousy can push a spouse away,” 2002, www.vernal. com/jan23/ so.valfarmer.html, 2/22/04).

There are a small number of marriages where exclusivity is not part of their relationship, so this specific issue would be less important for them. That is also true in whole cultures where exclusivity does not receive much emphasis.

Therefore, couples therapists must determine the importance of exclusivity and fidelity to each member. The problem can be a clash of expectations, leading to hurt to disappointment to frustration. If expectations within the couple differ, then the problem stems from underlying issues of poor communication, unclear perceptions, leading ultimately to a problem of compatibility. Given myriad contemporary relationship arrangements, fidelity can be a complex, not a simple either/or, issue.

However, the area of trust encompasses far more than fidelity. For instance, there is the fundamental question of honesty. Can they rely on each other’s word? Is there congruence between what one says and what one does? They must each have an underlying confidence of the other’s integrity in order to lower defenses and allow basic authenticity between them. Trust, in this respect, too, becomes the foundation of intimacy. Lack of trust reinforces barriers to experiencing the essence of each other in the most vulnerable inner self.

One issue of trust that sometimes surfaces is a fear of abandonment. Will one be left by the other for reasons beyond their control? A fear of abandonment can be a barrier to intimacy until/ unless the other is willing to risk hurt for an intimate payoff. Trust also goes to issues of personal efficacy. Can each of them rely on the other to be competent to perform the duties expected of them? Can they be trusted to handle money, stay employed, achieve a certain social standing, keep a house, etc.? In this regard, trust becomes the foundation of respect. Ideally, one would have the highest regard for the one they love, but this is not always the case. Love can still flourish despite incompetencies, but a mistrust of another’s basic efficacy as a human being will certainly wear on the emotional level of their relationship.

Vive la Difference: Tolerance
A world of individuals by definition means a world of unique and different humans. Do personality differences mesh or grate? If one cannot tolerate the other’s idiosyncrasies, the halls of the home will echo with such phrases as: “You left the toothpaste cap off!” “You don’t ever want to go to the opera with me!” “You’re not going to wear that, are you?” “You did what? What were you thinking?” “You didn’t ask me first.”

Obsessive-compulsives are probably not going to do well with slobs. Tchaikovsky will not fit with heavy metal rock and roll. Liberals and conservatives are going to clash. It has been said that opposites attract, but that is best left for nonhuman magnetism. Intimate relationships have enough complicating variables without major incompatibilities.

For major incompatibilities to exist in a relationship without hurting it, at least three conditions must exist:
1. The partners must attitudinally appreciate and value the differences in each other, by resolution and conscious choice.
2. The differences must not rank high among individual values., e.g., different preferences for or interest in sports will probably place lower in the hierarchy of values than differences of religion.
3. Communication must be strong. Each partner must be willing to understand the concerns of the other with regard to differences, and be willing to try to accept or “tolerate” both concerns and differences. Reciprocity and negotiation also are involved with these respect and trust issues.

Compatibility can thus be improved by how much each is willing to work toward it. Tolerance is a skill that can be learned. Are you with me? Supportiveness. People need to feel that their mate is on their side. By definition, they are supposed to be partners in life. How can they do that if they are on opposing teams?

Supportiveness is a consequence of trust. One is likely to be supportive of one he or she trusts; each partner becomes a recipient of the supportiveness from the other in a trusting relationship. Conversely, one feels that he or she can trust someone who is supportive of what they are and what they are doing. It works both ways to foster intimacy in a marriage.

But if one feels they do not have the support of their spouse, they will be defensive in the relationship, which erects or hardens existing emotional barriers. A romantic relationship can be destroyed if one experiences a near total failure of confidence and support from the other. One’s actions are perceived as without merit in the eyes of their partner, which leads to their feeling invalidated, and which extinguishes the romantic flame.

Supportiveness is closely related to tolerance. As alluded to earlier, supportiveness is intolerance evolved and “turned around.” If one learns to tolerate the other’s behavior, they can actually learn to support and encourage the other person, should they wish to add the dimension of support to the relationship. Again, it involves a conscious change in attitude. On a practical level, it can be made easier if the person doesn’t have to share or be subject to the given behavior. It can also be easier if neither partner requires numerous compromises. For example, one partner can feel free to enjoy a sporting event, while the other can be free to enjoy the mall without demanding each other’s accompaniment.

Supportiveness exists, obviously, on a continuum from total support to none; it is not an either/or component. Nor is it static. It varies as the overall tone and mood of the relationship varies. Its ebb and flow is tied to that of the relationship itself. The level of supportiveness has utility to the therapist in that it can be a cursory gage of the emotional health of a relationship— given its complex interrelationship to trust, tolerance, and values—a quick finger on the pulse of a couple.

THE SPIRITUAL LEVEL

The Spiritual Level includes values and religious beliefs. A commonality of values must exist for relationships to survive. While not the most complex level, it is perhaps the most crucial part of a relationship. The lyrics of a popular song, “If you believe the things that I do, then we’ll see it through,” is quite profound. If the two have different values, then they have different goals, and are headed in different directions. It then becomes a question of how much they are willing to negotiate and grow and adopt new values together. A healthy relationship is one in which couples have the ability to change and grow together.

On the spiritual level, needs are based on values, even if they are not explicitly in the conscious awareness of the partners (V. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning, Washington Square Press/Simon & Schuster, 1963, p. 164). So if the partners’ values are not congruent, then needs are sure to go wanting. How significant is the impact of unmet needs in a relationship? Few things kill love faster than unfulfillment.

Compatibile values are judgmentneutral— it does not matter greatly if the values are healthy or legal. Clyde Barrow, the famed mobster, had values that would offend most individuals. However, Bonnie Parker did not have a problem with them. They were quite compatible, albeit in a way that makes most people cringe. They had a commonality of goals, and they certainly ended up together. However, had Bonnie undergone a sudden religious conversion and changed her values to honesty and chastity, Clyde would have experienced certain unmet financial and sexual needs, and he surely would have dissolved the relationship (or changed dramatically himself).

Confounding variables emerge when the partners do not have deeply rooted senses of identity. Without a strong sense of self, we have ill-defined values and therefore are out of touch with needs. Worse yet, without a corresponding moral compass, we may drift and change values in response to whatever stimuli presents itself at the moment. This is what society labels as a “shallow” personality, not unjustifiably so. There are many out-of-touch people guided by whims who live life in a nonintentional, accidental fashion, taking what random incidence is presented to them. Without guidance, we walk around in an uncontrolled haze. And an uncontrolled person can be an emotional hazard to themselves and anyone with whom they become enmeshed.

The more mature and valuegrounded a person is, the better chance for success they will have in a relationship. Relationship starts with a strong sense of identity. That is why Nathaniel Brandon said that in order to say, “I love you,” one must first learn how to say the “I.”

In a developmental sense, it is ironic that the more separated and individuated the partners are, the more intimate the relationship can become. Of course, people can grow through each other, but this is better facilitated by a stronger developed self. People can become lost in each other if they were spiritually adrift beforehand, without knowledge of themselves and their core values. Is it growth to adopt the identity of another? And what are the odds of the granter of identity possessing a healthy self if he or she is willing to couple with an empty vessel? So perhaps it sounds selfish, but the soundest basis for a relationship is a well-developed and mature self, with clarity of values, confidence in them, and thus a strong sense of identity.

The other major component of the Spiritual Level is religious beliefs, which are usually screened early in a relationship.

THE SEXUAL LEVEL

A biological function, sexuality has evolved to a means of expression and a conduit for relating to the other, as well as an organic necessity for the perpetuation of the species. Cultural norms have added to its complexity to intertwine it with our emotional and spiritual levels. However, it need not be complex in this model.

Here, sexuality is viewed in terms of compatibility. This is essential in terms of desired frequency and variations in performance. If both are leather aficionados, fine. If both are prudes, fine. What must be addressed is the contemporary proclivity for immediate sexual intimacy before the other levels have been developed. This trend has developed with the blessings of those who fear intimacy; it is easier to be physically intimate with another than to bare one’s soul and risk genuine pain. The seductive attribute of premature sexuality in a relationship gives the appearance of emotional intimacy where it does not yet exist.

In fact, physical intimacy often becomes an evasion of emotional intimacy; one can have a form of intimacy without the risk of pain and the obligation of commitment, but it can end up being a game. Human physical contact in any form is powerful. Sexual contact, by its very nature, requires physical closeness; additionally, it requires revelation of areas explicitly considered private, and because of the intensity of its ecstasy, it fosters a powerfully shared experience.

In fact, sex is so powerful that it actually overpowers the other levels of the relationship! When sex first enters the relationship, it tends to become the primary focus. If this occurs before the other levels develop, it will stunt their development. The couple then ends up with a half-formed relationship, but based on physicality, with little or no knowledge of their partner. The relationship suffers when the sexual level overpowers the other levels. The possibilities for tragedy because of this imbalance are limitless.

For instance, with premature sexuality, how are off-hand remarks to be interpreted? Without developed supportiveness, will one back the ideas and experience of the other? Will idiosyncrasies be tolerated as they emerge? Even if two people have much potential compatibility, that may not develop if sex is introduced too early, blocking out other awarenesses.

The decision about when sex is introduced into a relationship is not a compatibility issue. Unless two people have a high level of selfawareness, postponing sex until at least a cursory friendship emerges should be a relationship imperative.

There is much that could be said about healthy sexuality, but the fundamental concern here is to remove obstacles to a sexual commonality, facilitating a functional relationship, which can grow naturally (I. Yalom, The Gift of Therapy, Harper Collins, 2002, citing Horney). Sexual dysfunctionality also is not addressed here.

THE MENTAL LEVEL

Mental compatibility is self-explanatory. Obviously, a genius will not do well with one whose intellectual abilities are modest. However, despite homogeneity of cerebral power, the value systems also influence the mental level in terms of common interests, and pursuit of recreation. Mental level disparities can be survived if the partners have other commonalities and strong tolerance. The mental, spiritual, and emotional levels are especially interrelated.

SUMMARY

Romantic relationships embody much of life’s promise and its despair. It is, therefore, curious that more people are not aware of relationship basics and their structural fundamentals. Perhaps this is because analysis is nearly opposite to the experience of intense romantic emotion. Thus, it is the last thing to be considered at the outset of an exciting, new romance. But knowledge being power, one may use the tools presented here to prevent a disaster in a relationship ab initio, or to identify areas of conflict and incompatibility in an existing one. Provided enough compatibility exists for a foundation, the more obstacles to intimacy that are removed, then the more the natural tendencies of growth may emerge and flourish in the relationship.

KEVIN S. DAWSON, M.S., is a Ph.D. student at Walden University. He gratefully acknowledges Gregg Young for envisioning the basic model and Kathleen Erickson for making it literate. www.kevindawson.com.

Cover Story

Archetypal Energies and The Four
Faces of Romantic Relationships
Carroy U. Ferguson