Thursday, April 27, 2006
Theory # 21: Relationships: It's not about love
Or at least it's not only about love.
My husband and I just watched a couple, friends of ours, break up. She wanted a baby, he didn't, and the conflict had them questioning their relationship. As he told my husband, the "spark" had gone out of their marriage and while he still loved her, he wasn't sure he was still in love with her.
Now, it's impossible to know what goes on in a marriage. Even the closest of friends can't know. Even someone living in the same house can't know. But my theory isn't directly about this particular couple--it's just inspired by and extrapolated from observation and experience.
Let's assume that a couple is truly, genuinely in love when they marry. Why, then, do some couples end up still happy 20+ years later, while others can't stand the sight of each other after 2? The answer can't always be that the unhappy couple was mistaken, that they weren't really in love. And I refuse to accept that "it just happens." Like love is some mysterious fog that comes and goes at random.
The initial attraction, yes, maybe. Some chemistry, some psychological connection happens that makes two people say "yes, this is the one out of all the other people in the world." I'm not going to try to think about the whys and wherefores of falling in love right now. I'm looking at the other end of the journey--the falling out of love.
My husband, by the way, subscribes to the mysterious fog theory. He thinks "it just happens." Which would worry me, if his actions didn't show otherwise.
I think the success or failure of a relationship is often due, not to emotion, but to action. Much is said and written about "keeping love alive," and it tends to take the form of dressing up in costumes and picking each other up in bars. That's not what I mean. I'm talking about little bitty everyday actions, that you make a choice about whether to do or not:
There are a zillion more examples, but that's the sort of thing I mean. Little things, and choosing one from the "goofus" side isn't a big deal once in a while, but it adds up, until eventually, that's all you're doing. And at that point, you start thinking that maybe the spark has gone out of the relationship.
I read an article a while ago (and I wish I could remember where, so I could cite it, and, even better, re-read it) that asserted that action => emotion, rather than the more usually held belief that emotion leads to action. That is, that acting in a loving way will ensure that you continue having loving feelings. It makes a certain amount of sense, even if it sounds rather cold-blooded.
As an example, here's a lesson I learned later than I think I should have. I learned it in relation to children, but it applies to marriage as well. When you've agreed to do something you really didn't want to do, pretend you're having fun, and after a while, it'll be true. When my daughter was small, I enjoyed playing everything with her except Barbies, and when she asked me to, I'd give in grudgingly, and keep thinking about other things I could be doing, looking at my watch, making it fairly obvious that I didn't want to be doing that. Then the light went on. What was I accomplishing by acting that way? Making both of us miserable. Punishing her for making me do something I didn't want? If I was going to do it anyway, what would I be losing by doing it cheerfully? It worked. Barbies still wasn't on my list of druthers, but we were both much happier. Note that I'm not advocating giving in on every issue, or doing things you absolutely do not want to do. But when you have already argued, negotiated, and one of you has acquiesced, the decision has been made. Live with it, cheerfully.
It works the same way with spouses, whether you're talking about an evening out, housework, sex, conversation, or the million other details of a life together. It's not love that makes me put down my book and talk politics with my husband when I'm right at a good part. It's not love that makes him call me daily whenever he's away from home even when it means standing outside a restaurant in the rain while his dinner's getting cold (he did this last night). Or at least it's not only love. It's a decision to do those little things that keep you connected, that keep you feeling in love.
Is that where our friends' marriage failed? I suspect so, though it's impossible to know. Maybe love is a mysterious fog that comes and goes unpredictably. But I doubt it.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
My husband and I just watched a couple, friends of ours, break up. She wanted a baby, he didn't, and the conflict had them questioning their relationship. As he told my husband, the "spark" had gone out of their marriage and while he still loved her, he wasn't sure he was still in love with her.
Now, it's impossible to know what goes on in a marriage. Even the closest of friends can't know. Even someone living in the same house can't know. But my theory isn't directly about this particular couple--it's just inspired by and extrapolated from observation and experience.
Let's assume that a couple is truly, genuinely in love when they marry. Why, then, do some couples end up still happy 20+ years later, while others can't stand the sight of each other after 2? The answer can't always be that the unhappy couple was mistaken, that they weren't really in love. And I refuse to accept that "it just happens." Like love is some mysterious fog that comes and goes at random.
The initial attraction, yes, maybe. Some chemistry, some psychological connection happens that makes two people say "yes, this is the one out of all the other people in the world." I'm not going to try to think about the whys and wherefores of falling in love right now. I'm looking at the other end of the journey--the falling out of love.
My husband, by the way, subscribes to the mysterious fog theory. He thinks "it just happens." Which would worry me, if his actions didn't show otherwise.
I think the success or failure of a relationship is often due, not to emotion, but to action. Much is said and written about "keeping love alive," and it tends to take the form of dressing up in costumes and picking each other up in bars. That's not what I mean. I'm talking about little bitty everyday actions, that you make a choice about whether to do or not:
| Kiss him goodbye in the morning | or | the dog's barking--I'll go let her in and catch him later |
| Call her when I'll be late coming home | or | it's only an hour, and besides, she's not my mother or my boss |
| have an actual conversation | or | oh, but there's a show on TV. we'll talk later |
| stay up and have sex | or | I'm too tired. How about a raincheck? |
| Thank him for helping out with whatever | or | Why should I thank him? It's his responsibility as much as it is mine. |
There are a zillion more examples, but that's the sort of thing I mean. Little things, and choosing one from the "goofus" side isn't a big deal once in a while, but it adds up, until eventually, that's all you're doing. And at that point, you start thinking that maybe the spark has gone out of the relationship.
I read an article a while ago (and I wish I could remember where, so I could cite it, and, even better, re-read it) that asserted that action => emotion, rather than the more usually held belief that emotion leads to action. That is, that acting in a loving way will ensure that you continue having loving feelings. It makes a certain amount of sense, even if it sounds rather cold-blooded.
As an example, here's a lesson I learned later than I think I should have. I learned it in relation to children, but it applies to marriage as well. When you've agreed to do something you really didn't want to do, pretend you're having fun, and after a while, it'll be true. When my daughter was small, I enjoyed playing everything with her except Barbies, and when she asked me to, I'd give in grudgingly, and keep thinking about other things I could be doing, looking at my watch, making it fairly obvious that I didn't want to be doing that. Then the light went on. What was I accomplishing by acting that way? Making both of us miserable. Punishing her for making me do something I didn't want? If I was going to do it anyway, what would I be losing by doing it cheerfully? It worked. Barbies still wasn't on my list of druthers, but we were both much happier. Note that I'm not advocating giving in on every issue, or doing things you absolutely do not want to do. But when you have already argued, negotiated, and one of you has acquiesced, the decision has been made. Live with it, cheerfully.
It works the same way with spouses, whether you're talking about an evening out, housework, sex, conversation, or the million other details of a life together. It's not love that makes me put down my book and talk politics with my husband when I'm right at a good part. It's not love that makes him call me daily whenever he's away from home even when it means standing outside a restaurant in the rain while his dinner's getting cold (he did this last night). Or at least it's not only love. It's a decision to do those little things that keep you connected, that keep you feeling in love.
Is that where our friends' marriage failed? I suspect so, though it's impossible to know. Maybe love is a mysterious fog that comes and goes unpredictably. But I doubt it.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Comments:
<< Home
Good stuff, Darla, and I agree. I think there's something to be said about having stuff in common, too. My wife and I share so many of the same interests that we're rarely at a loss for things to say to each other. Also helps that we share the same politics ;)
# posted by 
: 4/28/2006 7:51 AM
: 4/28/2006 7:51 AM
Oh, absolutely. That's why I have so much trouble with the "opposites attract" concept. I have friends who say they never talk to their husbands about their jobs or politics or current events. It boggles my mind. I couldn't do it.
Great post Darla :)
Love is just such a complicated subject. And being happy after 20 years has nothing to do with luck. Even the most compatible people can have love fizzle out if it is not given any time. But unfortunately "love" in marriage is one of the things most taken for granted.
Love is just such a complicated subject. And being happy after 20 years has nothing to do with luck. Even the most compatible people can have love fizzle out if it is not given any time. But unfortunately "love" in marriage is one of the things most taken for granted.
Thanks. That's been my experience, too--I know too many otherwise smart people who think that love doesn't require tending, that if it needs maintenance, it isn't really love.
Oh, absolutely chemistry has to be there, but I don't think it will last without tending. I've still got chemistry with my husband of 22 years--he came home for lunch today, and just looking at him in his new ACUs made my heart go pitty-pat. :) But that chemistry wouldn't still be there if we'd neglected each other, taken each other for granted.
Post a Comment
<< Home
