Chapters:

​

Introduction

1. The Bilateral Declaration at the ‘Altar’–

    Committing to the Partner’s Happiness

2. Acceptance versus Judgment

3. Giving Up on Trying to Change the Partner

4. Wheat and Chaff

5. Essence and Dressing

6. Responsibility for the Partner’s Distress

7. Basic Trust

8. Curiosity, Caring, and Intimate Sharing

9. Together - Apart / Connectedness - Separateness

10. Partnership: A Value of Its Own – Structure and Process

Conclusion

​​

​

Introduction

 

Both the particular subject under discussion and the broader discussion of happiness have been thoroughly addressed throughout history. This can be seen in various mythologies, in literature, and in theatre, as well as in research and social and psychological theory. As I state in the ‘Introduction’ page of this website (haimperry.com), the experience gained in the therapist’s clinic is another substantial window into the matter.

​

The core assumption is that at the foundation of any relationship between two partners, beyond the particular cultural differences, lifestyles, and sexual patterns, lie basic human needs, articulated by the values described below. However, because the descriptor ‘relationship between two partners’ may apply to a vast range of interpersonal connections, use of the term here mostly refers to a relationship that represents the desire of two partners to create a shared experience of life.

​

The insights this article discusses are presented with the aim of serving as something of a lighthouse, as navigation instructions. Their purpose is to provide the partners with standards for self-examination. They aim to create as vivid an image as possible of that which is desired, and thus take on a mostly ideal status. One may imagine the reader shaking their head as if to say, This seems so utopian – are there really any couples like that? The concurrent manifestation of all these values in a couple’s life may indeed come across as unattainable. But experience teaches us that understanding their significance, and consequently striving toward them, may greatly improve the quality of life within and beyond the relationship.

​

It’s difficult to sort the values offered herein by any sort of obvious hierarchy of importance, as a good relationship creates a synergy between them. Nonetheless, I still have special sympathy for what to me constitutes a sort of cornerstone, which has not-insubstantial potential to foreshadow the fate and strength of the relationship:

​

​

1. The Bilateral Declaration at the ‘Altar’ – Committing to the Partner’s Happiness

​

The term ‘altar’ here refers to that ritual experience wherein the partners formulate the ‘contract’ of the pact between them, the ‘deed of partnership’ that they choose to embrace.

​

Imagine, then, a ritual of engagement like this, where the two partners stand before one another, each making the following declaration to their partner: “I hereby commit to you that, in return to your choosing to tie your fate in my fate and your life in my life, I will do whatever is in my power to make you happy.”

​

Why did I choose to start with this particular element? What is so special about it? I chose it because experience indicates that those who have internalized this core idea will spontaneously implement a substantial portion of the values to be described later on, and that their relationships are characterized by high levels of security, mutual trust, satisfaction, and happiness.

​

At their core, the aim of our selfish instincts is our survival and self-preservation. We make sure not to be short-changed, not to be ‘suckered,’ not to be exploited, that we get what we ‘deserve,’ that we don’t miss out on the good we could achieve. By this same logic, generosity and altruism are often perceived as having the potential to impoverish us and even put our survival instincts at risk.  And, indeed, one of the most common occurrences in couples’ therapy is the petty squabbling that fails to distinguish between what is essential and what isn’t, characterized by a lack of generosity, compassion, and empathy. Such relationships are filled with petty, bitter score-settling, sometimes referred to as ‘keeping tabs.’ As if either partner walks around with a calculator which they use to calculate the balance between what they have given to their partner and what they have received in return. Such relationships come with an experience of distrust and victimhood, and a reluctance to accommodate the needs and wants of the partner, sometimes consciously and often unconsciously (as passive aggression). 

​

That promise ‘at the altar,’ on the other hand, beyond voicing the deep understanding that this is in fact the most effective way to reach a climate of reciprocal gratitude, generosity, and devotion, voices the essence of human love, being empathy with the loved one, care for their well-being, understanding their pain, and deriving a feeling of value and satisfaction from the ability to make them happy and put a glimmer in their eye.

​

As will be detailed later on, this position creates a discourse of gentleness, consideration, and acceptance, manifesting among other things in the ‘inverted fight,’ meaning: instead of the well-trodden fight over rights and what each partner ‘deserves’ (“it’s your turn today,” or “we agreed that you would take care of these things,” etc.) a partner who values their partner’s well-being will occasionally insist on taking on the tasks defined as their partner’s task, such as washing dishes, out of a consideration of the latter’s tiredness, or an accommodation of their other needs at the time, or simply as a desire to treat them.

​

If the other partner’s happiness is at the center of either partner’s experience, the odds of a happy life and a brave pact of relationship will significantly increase.

 

 

2. Acceptance versus Judgment

​

Acceptance is one of the hardest values to implement. It takes a lot of effort, emotional and intellectual, and constant struggle against mental forces threatening to undermine this capacity. Acceptance is the ability to accept the other, fully, as they are. In truth it is the ability to accept reality as it is. And, at its core, it is the ability to accept myself as I am.

​

The deeper we go into the value of acceptance, the better we understand that it is one of the factors with the greatest influence over any person’s happiness, but that’s a subject for a separate article.

​

Many couples suffer for their inability to accept one another as they are. Criticism and sometimes even sarcasm are common in many relationships. Any subject may be the basis of judgment and criticism: day-to-day behavior, emotional engagement, looks, parenting, function at work, certain character traits (and lack of others), intellect, education, knowledge, humor, social function, hygiene, technical skills, communication—the list goes on. Really, no field is free of criticism. This phenomenon is so common that many accept it as though it were a natural part of life as a couple, to be taken for granted.

​

Yet judgment, be it mutual or one-sided, is unparalleled as it comes to hindering a partner’s trust and confidence, burning insults into their souls, undermining their self-image, and forming cracks in the relationship. These cracks, if unaddressed, will grow with time. Judgment impairs the experience of camaraderie and hollows the relationship of its intimate facets. The relationship might thus shrink and become akin to a mere charity operation to raise the kids. The need for accepting, empathy, intimacy, and emotional support might leak out of the relationship. From this point it’s a short road toward spontaneously falling in love with someone else who does understand, accept, and relate.

​

There are many factors that make acceptance of the partner more difficult. Early on there will be the occasional doubt as to whether I really made the right choice, the uncomfortable notion being that maybe there is someone out there who is more perfect, a better fit, with whom I may be happier.

​

Sometimes, a partner’s excess preoccupation with their own worth, and their struggle to accept themself as they are, will prompt them to want to view their partner as a mirror, a prism to make their own image look better to themself and their surroundings. The other partner will then be perceived as a sort of extension of the former (in the way of “Tell me who your friends and I’ll tell you who you are”), and so every imperfection in the other partner will come to be viewed as an imperfection in the former partner themself.

Our culture presents us with perfect role models in every single field. Naturally this emphasizes the ‘lack,’ the things that we and our surroundings don’t have, and we are ever compelled to throw stones out of glass houses. An uncomfortable sense of missing out may arise and intensify as a result. The same culture also encourages the view of ‘winners and losers,’ and may thus give us a feeling of failure if our partner does not fit into these ideals.

 

What, then, is that acceptance that is so crucial to the strength and happiness of the relationship?

​

An old adage claims that every couple has to ‘marry twice’: first we marry who we thought our partner was, and then we marry who we have come to learn and know our partner is. This stance holds that the second ‘wedding’ is the more important of the two, as it expresses the ability to choose a partner realistically and free of idealization. At this point, the shared journey already made by the two partners allows them to become aware of one another’s sensitive points, their strengths, and weaknesses, and the whole of the ‘emotional and mental dowry’ that each partner brings into the relationship, for good or ill. In the same spirit, this is the time for each of the partners to ask themselves: “In light of this knowledge, would I still go back and choose my partners, with all they do and don’t have, with every ease and difficulty?” If the answer is yes, if this ‘combo deal’ is to both partners’ likings and they choose to live with it, then they must take responsibility for this choice. And taking responsibility means accepting. Accepting the partner as they are, without trying to change them, without any “Yes, but” or “If only,” which cast doubt upon that choice. 

​

But, despite what the idea of the ‘second marriage’ may imply—as though this is a one-time pivotal act—the challenge of acceptance will accompany the partners throughout their lives. Firstly, because the idealized perceptions, and consequent expectations of ‘how things should be’ are hard to break free of. Even if we aren’t aware of it, we are constantly comparing our partners to the model of behavior we deem worthy, and no one can, of course, withstand an expectation of perfection, be it in cooking, looks, intellect, social skills, or what have you. The frustration that such comparisons lead to is one of the reasons why it is so hard to fully accept a partner as they are.

​

“Nobody’s perfect,” the well-known phrase states. And, indeed, everyone enters a relationship with their own certain ‘baggage.’ This is the sum total of mental and physical strain they have experienced in life, or whichever imperfections or defects they were born with. One person, raised by a highly judgmental family, becomes highly sensitive to criticism; another is born with dyslexia, which shapes their intellectual skills. To accept the partner who is sensitive to criticism, for instance, means to be able to contain and calm them down, when their sensitivity prompts them to feel as though under attack, and thus potentially reacting in a defensive-aggressive manner necessitating patient containment out of an understanding of their sensitive points. If their partner is sensitive to injustice or aggression, acceptance will be substantially more difficult, in some cases requiring therapeutic intervention.

​

The other partner, who we suppose has dyslexia, may ask their partner which homophone is apt in a certain sentence, “there,” “their,” or “they’re,” or else be completely unaware of a misspelling. Quite a few partners would respond with disappointment mixed in with a mocking sarcasm, or a remark along the lines of “I’ve told you a thousand times already…,” as opposed to those who understand that dyslexia is not something that one can expect to disappear, thus answering “with an e”.

​

The changes we undergo over the years may also challenge our ability to accept our partners over time. These changes in part are a result of external developments, such as successes and failures in life: in our careers, in challenges of parenting, in health, and so on. These reveal behavior patterns and facets of our personality that had not manifested prior. Others are a result of internal developments emerging from age-based changes, likewise, requiring our partners to demonstrate adaptive and acceptance skills (you can read more on changes that take place as a result of aging and their impact on the relationship in the context of acceptance in the article Embracing Aging, in the category Insight from the Therapeutic Clinic on this website). As we can infer, the strength of our ability to accept our partner over time corresponds to a great degree with the strength of our love and care for them, and with our commitment to their happiness.

Generous, accepting love is the ability to understand the partner’s motivations. It is the ability to have compassion for their struggles, to forgive them their mistakes, to let their angers slide, to give them credit, to treat them gently, to let go of petty concerns and know what is and isn’t important, to let go of offense and not hold grudges, to know how to compromise—the list goes on.

​

The following examples illustrate the challenge of accepting the partner as they are, and the opportunities that emerge as a result of this challenge.

​

“But You Know I Love You”

​

They’re living together. They’re in their late twenties. Both of them are highly intelligent. They share many interests, especially in the intellectual realm. Except he is an emotional person who needs his partner to demonstrate emotions, and she’s rational, emotionally restrained, and not inclined to allow her emotions any external manifestations, physically or verbally. He is continuously frustrated. One day, as he comes home, he bursts out at her: “It doesn’t look like you care that I’m home at all! Nothing drops out of your hand when I walk through the door! The only one that jumps at me is the dog!” His partner looks at him, perplexed, and says: “But you know I love you.” 

​

Some partners would feel a sort of despair at such a response. They might filter out, in their internal monologues, It’s a waste of my time. She’s a lost cause. She’ll never be able to understand what I mean. She doesn’t have what it takes. Yet there might be a different perceptual-emotional-behavioral response. One would assume that, if they’ve already moved in together, he naturally already knows a thing or two about his partner’s personality. On one hand, it’s possible that he’s considering breaking up with her because of this, as surely this emotional style asserts itself in other ways as well. On the other hand, however, if she’s important to him, and he loves and accepts her in spite of her shortcomings, it’s possible that this incident might create an opportunity to talk about their respective needs. It’ll be an opportunity for her to enhance her awareness of own struggles on the one hand and her partner’s needs on the other. As a result, she may gain a better understanding of what might make him happy and feel good. One can assume that she will feel good when she hugs him next time he comes home. At the same time, she needs to clarify that, in spite of her increasing awareness, it’s almost certain that there will be times when she responds the same as she has up until now, as this is how she’s built. If their shared communication is open and friendly, she may tell him that what she needs is for him to accept her as she is, and, instead of bursting out at her, approach her with a warm smile and say, “My beloved space case, give your boyfriend a hug, he missed you.” This would be a great achievement for both of them.

 

“Why Do You Always Have to Be Late??”

​

She’s a tidy, meticulous person. When she schedules a meeting, tardiness is out of the question. It’s a matter of basic consideration to her, and she respects her fellows as much as he respects her own word. She thus knows that in order to be on time she’ll have to calculate how long it would take to find a parking space, to get from there to the meeting place, roughly how long the drive would be, even how long from the moment of leaving the apartment to starting the car. She knows that many factors are out of her control, such as road work, or a neighbor stopping her to talk about something urgent before she can enter her car. So, she adds some ‘overhead’ in order to be on time, meaning a necessary extension, to her planning. She will always prefer to be early than late. On top of that, she also doesn’t want to speed or have a tense drive as a result of a time shortage. 

​

Her partner, however, is completely different. They determine that they’ll leave the house at a certain time, but it never actually happens. He always says fine, but at the last minute he’ll always find something else to keep him busy. Their outings always come with stress and anger, they bicker over driving speed, which of course is meant to reduce harm, and halfway through the drive she tells whoever she needs to tell that she’s probably going to be late, and he doesn’t get what the fuss is about. For a time, she would even tell him: “You know how important being on time is to me, and how sensitive I am about this, but I feel like you don’t give a damn. I experience this as nothing short of abuse!” He would always be stunned by this statement, and he would apologize and promise that he would try harder. But it almost never happens. She knows he loves her very much, and usually he treats her with respect and accommodation and respects her, so she wonders: What the hell am I missing here?!

​

One day, the penny drops: she’s known for a long time that he’s had ADHD since childhood. This manifests, for instance, when she talks to him from six feet away and he doesn’t even address her! Naturally she was deeply hurt by this, early on in their relationship, until she realized in later discussions that he didn’t hear her at all, and that this was an unusual facet of his ADHD.

​

So, she asks to speak with him about the tardiness as well. She then learns two things: 1. He doesn’t even notice that he’s late at all. It’s as if his internal clock, which is supposed to pay constant mind to his state in time, doesn’t operate in any way similar to hers, which in her is so clearly discernible. She understands that he simply has no temporal navigation skills. 2. His view of tardiness is completely different to hers, perhaps as an evolutionary response to that aforementioned problem that since childhood has pitted him against his surroundings. Over time he developed an unusual regard for sticking to schedule. When a time is set for a meeting on any matter, he views it as an indication of a broad intention, more or less. If, for example, he decides to meet with someone at seven, to him it means that they’re supposed to meet “around seven” … the number seven is no more than a general direction, meaning “seven or so,” which can easily mean half an hour in either direction.

​

After these realizations, things around the house start to change. First, she stops being offended and viewing his behavior as disrespect toward her. She also understands that discussions of principle won’t change a thing, as the problem is probably fundamental to his mental mechanisms. She recognizes that a dynamic of persecution has begun to form between them when it came to scheduling, which weighs on the relationship as a whole. She thus understands that, if she wants to have a good life with him, she should first accept this phenomenon as a given, difficult though it may be to her. She decides to make a clear distinction between essential and non-essential, and to categorize tardiness as non-essential in order to spare them both the unending tension. They come to the agreement that when tardiness in a given matter is out of the question, such as for a theatre show, she will take it upon herself to remind him of the time, while he in turn will do whatever is in his power to be ready on time. And, yes, she also tells him that, when they’re late, she will be the one to drive…

​

One of the challenges they’d faced up to this point emerged from him being convinced that he’s the reasonable one and that the problem lies entirely with her. He had viewed her as an obsessive-compulsive person, believing that she needed therapy. The change took place following patient discussion between the two, wherein he received no criticism or anger from her, allowing him to seriously consider her words. He succeeded in understanding and internalizing that he did in fact have a problem in that field, and understanding how much she has suffered for his behavior, which up until that point he had failed to consider. This prompts him to be able to make great efforts to prevent her from suffering, even if he sometimes fails to see “what the big deal is.”

 

3. Giving Up on Trying to Change the Partner

​

Though this is naturally a sub-section of acceptance, I’ve decided to present it separately due to its significance. Imagine a person making this statement about their partner: “I know you far better than you know yourself. You are a wonderful bird to me. The problem is that the bird is caged. I’ll help you come free, spread your wings, and show the world who you really are.”

​

Ostensibly this might look like a declaration of love from a lover who sees the great potential in their partner, which they desperately want to see reached. Yet, on second glance, we can recognize not two characters here but three: the person making the declaration, their partner, and the character that the person making the declaration sees in their mind’s eye, the person they expect their partner to become after being set free of the cage. If we pay attention to the statement’s subtext, it might sound roughly like this: “I actually struggle to accept you as you are. But, if you become who I think you can be (and thus who you should be), then I will fully accept you with open arms.” Unfortunately, this is a fairly common model of relationships between partners. We find it hard to let go of our fantasies regarding our partners, so we convince ourselves that it’s only a matter of their willingness to make the requisite effort to become who we think they’re supposed to be. Whether explicitly or implicitly, this stance reflects the partner’s criticism and disappointment. This isn’t a dissatisfaction of certain behavior patterns from the other partner, which are valid to discuss. It’s the expectation that the partner’s very essence should undergo a change. Meaning that this statement voices a lack of acceptance of the partner’s very essence. Such a stance may make the latter partner feel unworthy in their partner’s eyes, reduce their confidence, and create a strain and distance within the relationship.

​

The paradox here is important to identify, as it applies to many aspects of life: even if the ‘caged’ partner did have the ability to make any change in the direction that their partner pointed at, it’s only natural that an atmosphere of criticism, overt or implicit, should result in insult, anger, and opposition to any suggestion or pressure of this sort. An atmosphere of acceptance of the other as they are, however, allows the partners to establish a dialogue about the fields where change might be possible, in a way that might encourage the partner to look into things and try to deal with them of their own free volition, not because someone is unhappy with them.

​

As discussed earlier, this ‘triumvirate’ discussed here, which represents the disparity between one’s desire and the reality of the other, applies to virtually every field imaginable. Our ability to accept our partners as they are, without trying to change them, is thus crucial to establishing mutual trust and confidence, without which a stable and happy relationship is impossible in the long term.

 

​

4. Wheat and Chaff

 

When speaking with second-marriage couples about lessons learned from the failure of their first marriages, many say that one of the most obvious lessons is the need to know how to separate what is important from what is not. “We fought so many times over nonsense, to the point of ruining our relationship.”

​

One of the most common reasons for such fights—especially among young couples, where each person is busy improving their self-esteem and self-worth—is the ‘ego’ taking over their behavior. There are countless examples, such as: who will say the last word, whose idea was it in the first place, who’s going to drive now, whose alma mater is more prestigious, if we drive through that street it’ll be faster, if we put the dishes in the dishwasher this way instead of that way we’ll save X amount of washes per month, you can’t use yoghurt if it’s four days expired, green wall paint for the kid’s room is more soothing than pearl, there’s no need for another shirt—there are already several similar ones at home, can’t take antibiotics two hours late, we’ve spent so much money on this trip so we have to see as much as we possibly can… we all know these things. And of course, this potential list could fill up a whole book, titled The Petty Things We Insisted on that Ruined Our Lives.

​

One of the most painful stories pertaining to this is the story of a couple that decides to finally go on holiday, renting a cabin up north. During their drive they begin to fight over whether they should drive through Wadi Ara (a lane that is occasionally blocked due to demonstrations) or through Wadi Milek (the Zikhron Ya’akov-Yokne’am highway). The fight gets so heated that they turn the car around and go back home! The rage and bitterness have destroyed any desire they had to take this time together.

​

Here’s what doesn’t happen there:

1. A decision to take a moment to cool off and not make any decision;

2. An honest, open discussion that seeks to understand why that specific route is so important to either party that they would be willing to blow up the whole holiday.

​

Let’s look at three potential reasons, at least ostensible ones, for this fight’s occurrence:

1. You always make the decisions. I want to decide this time.

2. We always drive through there, and this time I want to take a different route.

3. I’m afraid to drive through Wadi Ara.

 

In most cases where such incidents take place, there is a struggle to have conversations that seek to understand the root cause of the confrontation in real time, due to the extensive emotional baggage; it’s only in hindsight that additional underlying motives are revealed. If we look at these arguments literally, we won’t be able to understand what all the fuss is about. What both partners in the couple fail to internalize is that the whole point of this holiday is, first and foremost, to bring them closer together. So, the journey, the cabin, and everything they have planned for themselves is just ‘dressing’ – means to achieve that end.

​

If mutual accommodation and the desire for the other person’s wellbeing are the basis to the relationship, replying ‘yes’ to each of the three possibilities would come naturally. The immediate response to options 1 and 2 would be ‘okay,’ and the response to option 3 would be ‘of course, no problem.’

​

And what happens when the relationship between the two partners is not based on accommodation and generosity?

​

• A common reply to option 1 would be, I planned this trip taking time and gas into consideration. When you plan a trip, you can decide whatever you want.

• A possible reply to option 2 would be, so what if you want that? I want to drive through here. Who died and put you in charge?

• And a common response to option 3 would typically be an educated speech on how irrational that fear is, and how it can be overcome with a little bit of common sense and goodwill, so making the journey longer just for that would be unnecessary.

 

Of course, such an approach may heat things up and reach a point where each partner sends the other to therapy: one would be told to seek therapy for anxiety and paranoia, and the other for lack of any compassion or empathy. No wonder they end up driving back!

​

In some cases, like this one, the cause for the fight is pretty superficial, stemming from an unrealistic insistence on ‘principle,’ ego, and dignity. In most cases, stopping for a moment and observing from a ‘bird’s eye’ perspective would help recognize how unimportant this issue is, deescalating the confrontation before it takes off. Some self-deprecating humor would then replace the utmost seriousness each partner views themself with. 

​

And yet each of the three options presented above might belie substantial sensitive layers rooted in unresolved issues within the relationship, with the incident described here constituting a mere symptom of these undercurrents whose resolution would take serious work from both partners. Option 3, for example, might indicate that at least one of the partners in the relationship feels that their partner treats them impatiently, unempathetically, and unappreciatively to the point of dismissal and disrespect! In such a case, going back home reflects great distress, and a wake-up call directed at that partner.

 

​

5. Essence and Dressing

​

Two stories:

​

A. Birthday

 

A guy celebrates his partner’s birthday. He asks her to block out a day in her schedule for the surprises he’s prepared for her. They agree to meet at a certain place and start their journey from there. He’s meticulously planned the day to have several ‘stops’ (for instance a restaurant for breakfast, a massage, a restaurant for lunch, an exhibition, a theater show, etc.). These things are carefully planned, when some of them, like the massage and the play, are time-specific. En route to the first stop (the breakfast restaurant) they pass by a unique clothing store where his partner likes to shop. “Just a minute, I have to get a peek and see what’s new,” his partner says and storms in. He peeks at his watch and follows her in. Within seconds his partner falls into the arms of the seller: “Honey, you haven’t come in in a long time, is everything okay? You’ve got to see what we have at the moment.” The two women start to take clothes off the racks and sink deeper and deeper into their own world. The guy starts to get stressed as he calculates their diminishing time. “Babe, we have to move on, we don’t have any time left,” he calls to her. “One sec,” she replies, sinking into her own world again. Now she just has to try out an item or two, on which a substantial discount is promised to her. She completely forgets about time, and about her partner’s plans. 

​

Here we reach a crossroads. The man might feel offended and angry. He made such an effort for her, and she’s being so disrespectful right now about what he’s put into it, paying no mind at all to his pleading signals, and all he wanted was to make her happy. He might even burst out and yell that she ruined the whole birthday and that he didn’t want to continue with what he had planned when she’s being so inconsiderate.

​

But there’s another option, one that is highly unconventional: he might curb his rage and look at her. He hadn’t seen her this enthusiastic in so long! And then a surprising thought passes through his head: Why did I choose those specific stops? Because I wanted to make her happy, naturally. But, if I had known she would be so happy at this store, I would definitely have chosen it as an important stop in my planning! So, damn this fancy breakfast, we’ll find something on the way, from this point on this is the first station! And he changes his mind, goes in, and takes part in her deliberations with her. And, if she can’t decide whether to buy this item or that one, of course he’ll say with a smile, “What’s the problem? Just take both.”

​

What happened here is a deep understanding of the difference between means and end, and between essence and dress, when the end to begin with was the girl’s happiness and the restaurant was no more than a means toward that end. This, of course, allows for much flexibility, because “all roads lead to Rome,” so the end, not the means, is at the center of existence.

​

B. A Trip to Ireland

​

A young couple decides to take a trip overseas. After consulting with friends, they determine that it could be fun and fascinating to go to Ireland. They sit down together and go online to learn about recommended tracks. The trip is fleshed out according to plan. The guy is more practical, tending to stick to plans; his partner appreciates that and usually goes along with him, but she’s more spontaneous, tending to trust her intuition. He likewise appreciates her merits and goes along with her, and usually the two have great synergy. It’s late afternoon now, nearing evening, and they are on their way east to a nature reserve that they had read about and were greatly intrigued by. After that they’ll go back to Dublin, then home. At a certain point she tells him, “Let’s go south toward the sea, I think it could be cool there.” He’s got no problem with that. They were thinking in any case about finding a place to stay, any place at all, near the reserve and starting their trip through it the next day. Their drive toward the sea is long, and they get to a small seaside village in the dark. Luckily, they find a room for the night. When they wake up in the morning they are astonished by the stunning view before them. A quick survey through their vicinity only emboldens their first impression: a pastoral field drowsily stretches out before them, resonant with the ringing bells of cows calmly grazing the grass. When they advance a few dozen meters the field dramatically breaks off into mighty cliffs, descending at once to the waves of the sea, which crash angrily onto them. She tells him this is the kind of paradise one has to stay at for at least three days. He looks at her in disbelief. “But then we’ll miss out on the reserve!” he says. “Look,” she tells him, “Up until we planned this trip, we didn’t even know that reserve existed. It’s not like we’ve wanted to go for years. We’ve built up a dream in our imagination. But this dream is not imagined, it’s real! You think we wouldn’t have planned to come here if we had known about this paradise?!” 

​

He shuts his eyes, recreating the images of the reserve that he’d taken in while they were preparing for the trip. On the one hand she’s making a lot of sense. But on the other he was never a fan of what his conservative parents had always drilled into him: “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” His adventurous impulse always rebelled against such sentiments. But at this moment something else entirely is guiding him: the way her eyes glimmer whenever she’s happy is why he fell in love with her in the first place. It’s at such moments that his heart goes out to her and he’s the happiest man on Earth. And he knows that, with all due respect to that nature reserve, they didn’t come here as natural explorers in order to study the reserves of Ireland. This trip was designed to celebrate their shared love and joy, and to shake off the dust of routine. Ireland was chosen first and foremost because they viewed it as beautiful set-dressing for a romantic trip. Their curiosity about that country, which neither had ever visited, was ultimately a secondary motivation. Luckily, at this moment he finds within himself the flexibility to shift his mind and take three magical days of love.

​

​

6. Responsibility for the Partner’s Distress

​

More than once, when starting couples’ therapy, the partners view the therapist as a sort of judge who needs to determine who of the two is the ‘reasonable’ one and which is the ‘problematic’ one. Sometimes this is compounded by the expectation that the ‘problematic’ partner would stay on for one-on-one therapy, whereas they, the ‘reasonable’ one, would be exempt. The accompanying rationale is often phrased more or less like this: “Why should it be my responsibility if they’re too sensitive and hurt by every little thing?!” Often what underlies this statement is the fear that they might be blamed and deemed responsible for their partner’s mental state. What’s missing here is the distinction between blame and responsibility. I may not be to blame for my partner’s distress, but does that exempt me from caring about their wellbeing? 

​

From the moment I choose to live with this particular partner, the question of whether they are ‘reasonable’ is no longer pertinent. If what I care about is that my partner is ‘a reasonable person’ and after some time I come to see that they are far from it in my eyes, and that I am incapable of accepting it and feel like I’m missing out and having a bad time, I may choose to walk away. But, if I am making the loving, appreciative choice to stay with my partner, even though I’m aware of their weaknesses and sensitive points, I have to take responsibility for choosing them. And taking responsibility means taking as a given that I am not going to be cruel to them because of who they are, thus creating an unbearable dynamic of persecutor and persecuted. This also applies to people who choose to stay with their partner not out of love but out of some constraints or other, or out of self-interest. In any case this is a choice they will have to take responsibility for. If they don’t, they turn themself into a victim, and will surely take out their frustration on their partner. Either way, if we want to live in a warm, embracing relationship, a choice necessitates acceptance and responsibility. And this means that we not only aren’t supposed to dismiss our partner’s feelings as though they were not our problem, but we have to build up great sensitivity for these touchy points! We have to teach ourselves how to respond and address them in order to save them from falling into their pits of pain, or at least help them come out of these quicker and with less pain. 

​

What is this like? Suppose we have two keys: one black, one white. Each key represents a pattern of behavior we may take regarding our partner. If we use the black key, we’ll probably be ‘stepping on their toes’ and cause a distress that will prompt an array of reactions that will make both us and them feel bad (this is what is commonly referred to as an ‘own goal’). If we use the white key, however, we’ll make it possible for them not to fall into these pits, or, again, at least we’ll help them come free of their grip. We thus take on the role of someone who has applied aloe to their wounds. In this there’s a far better chance that we’ll get the version of our partner that both they and we like best.

 

 

7. Basic Trust

​

Trust between partners is one of the most elementary subjects in their impact on the couple’s quality of life. The theme of ‘my home is my fortress’ and the human longing for a home that is a ‘sanctum of calm and sanity’ can be identified throughout all cultures. Again, and again people voice the desire to get home at the end of the day knowing that they will be able to shed their masks and the tools of engagement that they have taken up, in hopes that at home they can be their most authentic, at-ease selves, without any need to pretend and to watch out for unexpected pains. Underlying the defensive cloak is often an expectation for an experience of embracing arms, of unreserved acceptance, and of empathetic understanding. 

​

And should two partners approach this ideal state and stick to it over time, it is in fact a virtue. The ability to acquire mutual trust is one of the most important factors in making this possible. “Are you with me or against me?”, “I’m not laughing at you, I’m laughing with you, “don’t take it personally”—these are just some of the phrases that orbit this theme. Trust has to do with the certainty that my partner has deep respect and appreciation for me. That they accept me as I am—with all of my flaws, my trespasses, the ways I’m messed up—and that they have my wellbeing and my happiness in mind and are very careful of hurting me.

​

It sometimes happens that a partner says or does something that greatly hurts the other partner. This moment challenges the experience of trust between the two. In cases where the level of trust is low to begin with, the damage might be severe. The internal response of the offended partner might be one of insult and rage, of emotional distance, and, in extreme cases, of a loss of what remains of the trust; they might feel that the cat is out of the bag, that their true face is revealed, and so on. 

​

When the level of basic trust in the other partner is high, however, the offender partner’s response might be more or less like this: “I know them well, I know how much they love me. If they had thought that what they said or did might hurt me so much, their gut would turn over in pain. Yet this did in fact happen, so what am I missing?!”

​

Such a response is an opening for communication, for sharing one’s experience to seek clarity on what underlies the incident in question. Often the offended partner might find that it was actually something that they said or did—often mindlessly or not sufficiently sensitively—greatly hurt their partner and caused an uncontrolled burst of pain. When there is trust, such an inquiry could serve as the basis for drawing conclusions and reinforcing the mutual sensitivity between partners.

​

These things apply to all human relationships. Relative to the entire population, there are few psychopaths in the world who like to hurt the people around them. Yet so often many people hurt one another. How does one explain this? If we could each enter the other person’s soul, we would find that, in most cases, each party views themself as the victim of the other’s aggression, and themselves as merely responding in justified self-defense.

 

 

8. Curiosity, Caring, and Intimate Sharing

​

Someone once told me: “Over the years, my marriage has become a ‘production company.’ We operate like a finely tuned management team. We have a functional division of roles. We bring the groceries home from the supermarket, and we take them out, we agree on budget planning, and on the kids’ education, we go out, we have people over, occasionally we go on overseas trips with friends, the sex is fine, and we almost never fight. I’m sure that to a lot of people we seem like the perfect couple. But I’m telling you that to me it just feels like a fancy shell! There’s a lot of emptiness underneath it, I feel lonely inside and dream of an intimate connection that I sorely lack.”

​

In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye the milkman, already getting on in years, turns to his wife, Golde, and, as if he was tasked to do so in some workshop, asks her: “Do you love me?” “Do I what?!” Golde asks as though he’d just spoken in a foreign language. But he keeps at it: “Do you love me?” And again, she asks: “What?!” This repeats itself until she finally regains her composure and answers: “For twenty-five years I’ve washed your clothes, cooked your meals, cleaned your house, given you children – and you’re asking if I love you?!” 

​

Picture two women, neighbors. One’s husband comes home every day between five and six in the evening; the other’s husband is away for work two weeks of every month. In a conversation between the two, the former confesses to her friend how much she envies her for her relationship with her husband.

​

“You envy me?!” The latter replies, perplexed. “You have your husband at home with you every day.”

“At home, yes,” the former replies, “but not really with me… but your husband, even if he’s in a meeting on the other side of the world, he might cut it short for a moment just to ask you how your doctor’s appointment went that morning.”

​

We may call what she is referring to a virtual umbilicus. What this means is a shared mental experience that connects two people in a way that transcends time and space, making them feel safe and at ease.

​

When thinking about intimacy, a lot of people default to thinking about sex. But intimacy is a manifestation of a profound mental need, first and foremost – the need for someone who knows how to touch you deep inside, who understands you, sometimes without words, who is involved in your world out of curiosity and caring, who will patiently listen, who will treat you with tenderness, who will respect you, identify with you, serve as a true friend who shares things with you and exposes their inner world to you without any fear. Many songs and poems voice this longing across cultures; in Hebrew, Anat Gov and Yoni Rechter sing, “Someone out there is thinking of you.”

​

But even though intimacy is such a basic, universal need, we often tend to deny it and go about our lives as if we don’t really need it, as if we consider it to be an emotional dependency, that is, an expression of weakness, which would make us vulnerable out of a fear of rejection, and, consequently, of humiliation. And so, defending ourselves from pain, we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Which is to say, we may find ourselves, as a result, living the life of a merely functional shell, and what is buried underneath may be given the picturesque title ‘the exile of the soul.’ Except over time this repressed longing for intimacy might pierce through its shell and form a crack that threatens the wholeness of this functional mold, as can be seen in the first story. 

​

However, in spite of the above, it’s important to state that, although open verbal communication is the most advanced and nuanced tool we have for intimacy, it is not a necessity. Again, intimacy is the consequence of a feeling of acceptance, caring, respect, understanding, support, sensitivity, patience, and love. This feeling is built up with the trials of time, and it’s possible even if its verbal facet is limited. Perhaps what Golde wanted to tell Tevye runs much deeper than the immediate literal contents of her reply. Perhaps she wanted to tell him: “You silly man, is there any intimacy deeper than that?”

 

​

9. Together - Apart  /  Connectedness - Separateness

​

The terms ‘apart’ and ‘together’ represent two basic human needs. These needs are sometimes complementary and other times contradictory. The unresolved tension between them constitutes one of the core dramas in our lives, which has much influence over our lifestyle and happiness. There are virtually no psychological theories whose premises don’t rely on the importance of the tension between these basic needs.

​

On one hand, the primal aspiration to belonging and connection is deeply seated in us, representing the longing for the total intra-uterine symbiosis wherein our needs are all accommodated in the closest way to perfect possible, and, later on, to the earliest stages of childhood when we still have strong symbiosis with kindly parents who protect us and nourish us, physically and mentally.

​

At the same time, and no less strongly, we aspire to separateness and independence, most symbolized by the acute emergence out of the mother’s womb into the world. This is the aspiration to individual identity, to an expression and realization of this same identity, and to the attainment of control over our lives.

​

The behavior of a child arriving at a playground with their mother is one of the most fascinating manifestations of this tension between the dual longings to be part of, and, at the same time, separate from the longing for connection on the one hand and freedom on the other. The mother, aware of the need to encourage independence, escorts the child to a climbing tower, then sits down on a nearby bench and cheers them on while trying to hide her fear for their well-being. The child goes up one step or two, then stops, turns their head to face their mother, goes back down, and runs over to her. “What is it?” the mother asks. “Nothing,” the child replies after some hesitation, then runs back. This time they go up another step or two, then they go back down and run to their mother again. “What is it?” “Nothing.” And again, with each such cycle giving them additional security to handle another rung. Metaphorically, but to the child very tangibly, they are testing the stable existence of this ‘virtual umbilicus’ that connects them to their source of safety – their mother. This is a wonderful example of how the need for connection and safety and the need for autonomy and independence can complement one another. We can say of this example that, “When you have a safe home harbor, you can feel free to sail away.”

​

This article has so far focused on challenges that pertain to the attainment of proximity, trust, and security in a relationship, and on the aspiration to communication and intimacy. But a relationship isn’t stable or healthy if these two basic needs, connection and separateness, aren’t in dynamic balance, or if one of the partners doesn’t get any understanding or validation of their needs to express their needs, their values, and their identity, alongside their need of and obligation to their partner, from the partner.

​

But reaching this goal comes at a substantial difficulty. While the pact of the relationship is formed, there will more than once be a state of distress emerging from the struggle to regulate the right balance between together and apart. In some cases, it has to do with that same ‘mental dowry’ that each partner brings to the relationship, and in others with a misapprehension of the degree of concession, of accommodation, of generosity, and of sensitivity inherently required in any ongoing romantic relationship.

​

One of the most sensitive mental matters that each partner enters the relationship with has to do with the initial attachment pattern established in childhood, as is described in the earlier story of the child. The term attachment pattern describes the basis of trust and confidence we have in our surroundings, the level of the object of love’s stable presence, and the degree to which the concurrent formation of our autonomous existence is possible at the same time. A healthy attachment pattern represents the confidence that we may need and depend on the other without losing our autonomy, and at the same time the confidence that we are free to forge our own unique paths without losing the emotional crutch that the loving connection provides us.

​

But our childhood experiences aren’t always this idyllic. If one of the partners enters the relationship with the ‘dowry’ of a lack of confidence in the stability of the love granted them, and they tend to develop separation anxiety, they may greatly struggle to afford their partner the individual space that they need. If at the same time their partner’s experiences are a result of an overbearing, smothering climate, they might be extremely sensitive about their freedom and view healthy aspects of dependency and obligation as a threat to that freedom, responding with anxiety to the fear of subsumption and elimination of self. Such a scenario will be deeply challenging to the relationship.

​

However, as discussed previously, there is an inherent ambivalence within the connection process even without any special sensitivities. In a gross generalization one might say that men are more often characterized by these fears of subsumption, whereas women are more often characterized by fears of abandonment. To a great degree this is a consequence of developmental processes related to the formation of their autonomous identity.

​

Alongside the romantic mental images that come with love, relationships, and family, we can also identify many fears related to the connection that come with them. Many young men (and, in recent decades, young women who value their career and self-actualization as well) think that sooner or later they will have to settle down for a career, for a relationship, and for parenting, and this realization is a threat to their freedom. In another generalization we can say that there is a suspicious attitude inherent to the space between the “men from Mars” and “women from Venus.” Men tend to view women as those who wish to tame them and clip their wings, whereas women tend to view men as behaving selfishly and noncommittally. Many comedies and songs have been written about this. (For instance, the famous French song “Ma liberté” by Georges Moustaki comes to mind, concluding with the description of a “beautiful jailkeeper” and her “prison of love.”)

​

Conflicts related to the reciprocal dynamic between ‘together’ and ‘apart’ are among the biggest challenges in a couple’s life, and they challenge our maturity, our intelligence, and our mutual sensitivity. They require us to adopt and implement most of the themes described heretofore. For instance, they necessitate an intimate knowledge of our partner’s and our own mental needs, an acceptance of their uniqueness, an ability to identify with them and accommodate their needs, and as a result the occasional willingness to forgo the fulfillment of our own substantial needs at that time.

​

At the same time, we also need to acknowledge our partner’s mental limitations, which don’t always allow them to endure the challenge posed by our unique path. More than anything we have to understand that any relationship where one of these two values—the search for proximity and intimacy and the search for an autonomous personal space—isn’t sufficiently fulfilled over time will more often than not become an unhealthy relationship whose mental bases might be eroded.

​

We all need roots and wings. The need for security, belonging, and love pulls us inward toward the home, while the need for freedom, for new experiences, and for self-expression pulls us outward, to what may sometimes be termed ‘the ecstasy of expanse.’ This is supposedly a fundamentally unresolved conflict that thus necessitates an acute awareness of its tensions, which may threaten the health of the relationship. Yet at the same measure it’s important to understand the synergic potential within this conflict:

​

The interpersonal divergences in preference, in tendency, in life experience, and in personal lifestyle might enhance and strengthen the relationship. In order for this to happen a high mutual appreciation of the other partner’s ways and personality is required, as well as curiosity about their personal world and a desire to learn from them and enrich ourselves as a result. Mutual accommodation and the willingness to meet our partner halfway result in a mutual gratitude that increases generosity and prevents the development of an experienced victimhood.

​

This is demonstrated by the following story:

​

One guy, a family man, falls in love with a given competitive sport. He invests a lot of resources into it, time and money, and on occasion he travels for competitions overseas. The vast amounts of energy he puts into it greatly reduces the time he has left for other matters. He understands this and takes responsibility for it: he turns down a tempting offer for a promotion in his career, which would come with added money and improved status, as it would often require him to be away from home. He devotes the remainder of his free time to his kids and partner, who greatly appreciates his sacrifice. Nonetheless, his partner is torn between the option of accommodating him on one hand and the anger that she feels whenever he is away from home on the other.

​

She understands how loaded this issue is and chooses not to beat him but to join him. This means that, instead of treating this passion of his as an extramarital lover of sorts, threatening to take him away from her, she chooses to tap into this love of his. She starts learning about the sport and its nuances, the rules, the challenges unique to it. When she can, she occasionally joins him on his trips, and encourages him both in his successes and in his harder moments. The story becomes an empowering shared experience that brings the two together.

​

But such solutions aren’t always attainable. If, out of her great sensitivity, the same guy’s partner were to suffer from anxiety and stress whenever she had to sleep at home alone, even for one night, they would have to find unusual solutions for such a scenario. This certainly would have been more difficult if she were to accuse him of acting selfishly and insensitively toward her whenever he started speaking about going away. Such a response might prompt a defensive reaction of anger on his part, which wouldn’t make finding a solution any easier.On the other hand, she might respond by apologizing for her great sensitivity, even feeling guilty for not allowing him to pursue his dream. This form of response might make him feel compassion and generosity for her. And, assuming there is much love between the two partners in the story, it’s likely that he would offer to not pursue overseas competitions altogether! Whereas she, for her part, would hear none of it whatsoever! (This scenario might prompt an ‘inverted fight’ between the two partners.) It’s possible that the solution would be for her to join him on his trips on occasion when possible, at other times inviting a friend or one of her parents to stay with her, whereas he for his part would generally try to travel only for shorter competitions that would only require him to be away for one night; finally, in unusual cases, when a longer competition is very important to him, they would find creative ways to prepare in advance.