That said, recent research from the University of Columbia suggests it’s more complex than that. Apparently a better answer is to ask a further question: What do individuals want? Those of us who feel good around similarity will thrive with a partner as like us as possible. Those of us energized around difference will thrive with a dissimilar mate. It’s not the dynamic itself – all variations can theoretically work – it’s our comfort level that dictates success.
What about the ‘men are from Mars, women are from Venus’ issue? We might wonder whether, if similarity is so very important, but X and Y chromosomes are so irreversibly unlike, all different-gender relationships are going to be fraught. Here’s the reassurance: men and women are actually very similar. Some psychologists even suggest there are only two built-in gender differences – verbal skill and aggression – while anything else is down to nurture not nature and therefore adaptable. So if a relationship ends unhappily we shouldn’t blame the gender difference, or point accusingly at ‘men’ or ‘women’. And if a relationship seems well advised, we shouldn’t worry that it’s all doomed just because our beloved is of a particular gender. To put it another way: ‘Men are from earth, women are from earth. Deal with it.’ (The original of that quote is claimed by at least a dozen people, but it was far too apposite to omit from this book just because its author can’t be identified!)
Disrobing
Values, life goals, personality. Given honest conversation, we can probably guestimate these three elements in the first few meetings with a potential partner and – as we should – bail out if there are reasons for doubt . . .
But real proof at this level takes a while, and it’s as important to talk as it is to listen. Revealing what matters to us, doing the things that fascinate us, exploring the past and planning the future together will over time remove more and more individual ‘veils’, and, along with that disrobing, our judgement of each other will become more and more accurate. Studies suggest that goals will become obvious first, values next, with personality revealed last of all. To slightly hasten the process, you might try raising the ‘deathbed questions’ as a topic for mutual discussion; crassly posed, they may bring the conversation to a shuddering halt, but used at a stage where both partners are sufficiently at ease to go deeper, they’re exceedingly good for highlighting compatibilities.
‘Commitment is an act, not a word.’ – Jean-Paul Sartre
Embroidery
Speaking of veils, is it wise to ‘embroider’ them in the early going, perhaps omitting certain details and subtly altering others for effect? How should we present ourselves in order to attract a mate? Answer: don’t ‘present’, simply be. Of course it’s tempting to massage the headline figures – online, apparently women often lower their age and weight, while men increase their height and salary. And of course it’s courteous not to be so ‘open and honest’ that we spend the first few dates revealing intimate details of our most recent relationship-breakdown or the exact figures of our current financial crisis. But if we’re not at least factually truthful to begin with, and if we’re not emotionally truthful very soon after, we’re in grave danger of ending up with a partner who wants what we say we are, not what we actually are.
Which is why I’m no fan of dating systems such as The Rules, which advise a ‘play hard-to-get’ approach to partner choice. I have to admit to feeling faintly nauseated by a book which, as early as line nineteen of its introduction, promises a way of acting around a guy so he becomes ‘obsessed with you and wants to commit’ – surely patronizing to both genders. But my objections are not only ideological but also pragmatic – any suitor, male or female, who is only enthralled by the thrill of the ‘hard-to-get’ chase will likely lose interest once the hunt is over. Although being authentic may feel scary, the more authentic we can be – about what we believe, what we want, who we are – the more chance we’ll have of eventually meeting a suitable prince or princess, even if that also means that en route we drive off a lot of incompatible frogs.
What if, conversely, we wonder if a partner is being inauthentic? This isn’t so much about whether they are lying – if we suspect they are, we’re almost certainly right. But what if nerves are holding them back, or lack of self-confidence is making them hide true thoughts and feelings. Usually only time, trust and the opportunity for in-depth conversation will tell. But – though it isn’t under our control and shouldn’t be magicked up to order – an external drama or crisis will often make it clear, snapping us out of early courtship timidity, giving us a reason to step out and show who we really are, for bad or for good.
I am remembering one client whose turning point for leaving a boyfriend was when she was involved in an accident and he suggested she call a cab to take her to A & E as he was ‘too tired’ to drive her there. More hopefully for one’s faith in human nature, I’m remembering another client who suffered a burglary; her partner’s absolute support, practical action and complete understanding of how traumatized she was sent her rightly over the edge into commitment. It was sad about the burglary, but for the relationship, it was a result.
Soothe then solve
The two stories above, highlighting two very different responses to the emotional needs of a partner, bring us neatly to another kind of connection. And if you’re reading this book in the hope of a single ‘top tip’, here it comes. Without this element in a relationship, all the compatibility in the world won’t keep us afloat; with it, all the alarms, excursions, dramas and crises won’t sink us. Professor Sue Johnson, on whose work this section of the book is based, even hints that every other single factor involved in partner choice may be irrelevant. Get this right and you’re sorted.
I’m talking about emotional responsiveness – a partner’s ability to pay loving attention to our emotional needs, and our ability to pay attention to theirs. Note the reciprocity. As well as needing to choose a partner who values our feelings, we need to choose a partner who motivates us to value theirs. However wonderful a suitor, if they don’t inspire us to respond, they’re the wrong choice.
We all have emotional needs. Abraham Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs – that triangle at whose base sit the human physical requirements for air, water, food, clothing, shelter and safety – has on its higher storeys the need for belonging, acceptance, security, respect, love. We generate much of this inside ourselves as we mature, but the meaning of John Donne’s cry that ‘no man is an island’ is that none of us can do the job alone. Knowing our partner will respond when we need them, knowing we’ll respond when they need us, is at the heart of the love bond.
So what is this responsiveness? Here’s a definition which you may find usefuclass="underline"
1. Being able to notice, pay attention to, reflect on, soothe and express our own emotions.
2. Being able to notice, pay attention to, reflect on, soothe and respond to a partner’s emotions.