So let’s embrace the romance, let’s enjoy the passion. In short, bring on the sparkle.
8. Knowing
Seven years would be insufficient to make some people acquainted with each other, and seven days are more than enough for others.
(JANE AUSTEN, SENSE AND SENSIBILITY)
The question we’re most likely to ask ourselves when we begin to date is ‘How will I know?’ What this really implies is two questions, ‘how’ and ‘when’: ‘How and when will I know enough to choose this person, or to not choose them, or to decide that the moment of choice is past?’ Let me say from the start that there’s no answer here, nor are there guarantees that one ever will know. All we can do is explore the possibilities.
Instant reaction
Possibility number one is that the answer to ‘how will I know?’ is ‘sheer gut reaction’ and the answer to ‘when will I know?’ is ‘instantly’. Eyes meet across a crowded room and the deal is sealed; as examples, see two separate if very different American presidents. In his memoirs, Bill Clinton reports that when his wife Hillary first spoke to him, he was so overwhelmed that he forgot his own name. Lyndon B. Johnson apparently asked ‘Lady Bird’, as his wife was known, for a date within minutes of meeting, and proposed at the end of that first date; they were still happily wed when he died almost forty years later.
Of course, an instant and instinctive decision about partner suitability is often a vote against – the elimination principle at work. Which is why, if all other boxes are ticked, it’s often wise to follow up even the most disastrous first meeting with a replay. That allows us to gather more, and more accurate, evidence – as well as reducing self-consciousness on both sides, allowing prospective partners to shine. This advice was passed on to me by a colleague who judged her blind date to be socially incompetent but gave him the benefit of a second hearing. She soon discovered he was simply overawed by her, a trait which soon transformed itself into socially competent adoration on both sides.
Then there’s the opposite danger. Over-speedy decisions can lead to being totally swept off one’s feet by beauty and charm, only to realize that one’s given house-room to a monster. That said, as I’ve confessed, I’m no enemy of a little carefully managed infatuation. And the danger’s often resolved by the inevitable removal of rose-coloured glasses – inevitable because such instant passion is likely to implode at the first sniff of a problem; as Shakespeare put it, ‘These violent delights have violent ends / . . . like fire and powder / Which as they kiss, consume.’ But if instant enchantment makes us want to instantly commit in some comparatively irreversible way (mortgage, marriage, motherhood) then it’s best to apply the necessary brakes.
Taking time
Bill Clinton may have been so overwhelmed by Hillary that his brain stopped working, but the ‘how’ of knowing is normally more thoughtful. And it’s usual to take longer than Lyndon Johnson’s few minutes to decide that we have found our life partner; radioactivity pioneer Marie Curie, for instance, turned down husband Pierre’s proposals a full seven times before she was convinced. Taking at least some time, space and consideration typically works best because it helps us to discover more about a partner, allows them to discover more about us. Where possible, dig deeper, search wider, allow both logic and emotion, head and heart to synchronize. As the Russian proverb runs, ‘Trust, but verify’.
Which is why communities have traditionally built in delay: long engagements, no sex before marriage, betrothal for a year and a day before the wedding proper, all so we can verify the information and draw a considered conclusion. Our contemporary speedy courtship rituals – sleeping together without vows, moving in together without documentation – are only acceptable because we’re now not bound together for life if love turns to hate. Ironically, the most modern method, online dating, has reintroduced some of that traditional delay, with users going through a sometimes lengthy and in-depth process of ‘getting to know you’ while they continue to ‘get to know’ several others online until they commit.
But it’s also best not to be too slow and too considered, for there are dangers in hesitation; we may lose not only momentum but also faith. Especially in the key transition stages – having sex, becoming monogamous, moving in – if the moment passes, so too may the belief that it was a good idea. If you’re worried about a timetable be reassured that, as the Jane Austen quotation at the beginning of this chapter shows, there is no ideal. That said, as very rough guidelines, two months of regular dating is long enough to know whether both sides want to declare themselves partners, two years long enough to know whether lifetime commitment is possible. Pass those breakpoints and it’s justifiable to question the length of the journey.
How do you know?
So take stock. What is your journey to knowing? Do you rush into connection, physical or emotional, with spontaneous eagerness, enthusiasm and a marked inability either to doubt or to tolerate delayed gratification? Or do you progress so slowly and serenely in affairs of the heart that onlookers – or even the objects of your affection themselves – believe you’re ambivalent? In other words, do you typically push for commitment because you’re so quickly convinced that you’ve found perfection, or delay it because you’re waiting for perfection to prove itself?
There is an argument here for acting against usual tendencies. Previous speedy commitment may have led to some lack of judgement, previous tardy commitment may have meant losing love. And, as the old saying goes, ‘If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got.’ So if we normally rush in, then, without playing ‘treat ’em mean and keep ’em keen’, we could maybe try holding back on that first kiss, that first sexual encounter, that first meeting with parents, until we know precisely what we’re dealing with. Conversely, if we typically tend to hesitate, then, without playing ‘wear your heart on your sleeve’, we could maybe ‘lean in’ to suggesting that date, supplying that extra front-door key, declaring those intentions – even before it feels completely comfortable. Altering approach is, as always, a challenge. But perhaps if you do what you’ve never done, you might get what you’ve never before got.
One of the nicest, as well as one of the most effective, ways to make a partnership decision – which involves taking time to explore but doesn’t drag things out – was suggested by my colleague Dr Charley Ferrer. Its approach is based not so much on information-gathering or timing as on attitude. For ninety days, Dr Ferrer advises, we should commit completely. We shouldn’t hold back for fear of being taken for granted, shouldn’t cling on for fear of being rejected. Instead, for a full three months, we should offer full engagement in giving and taking, full emotional responsiveness, full trust that the partnership will continue. In other words, we should behave as if we already ‘know’ and have already chosen. If after that time we have no hesitations, then we know enough to say a completely wholehearted ‘yes’. If at the end of the ninety days we are still hesitating, we have gained more than enough knowledge to justify a ‘no’.