Recovering from Divorce and Your Next Committed Relationship: Willing or Demanding? That is the question

The record of “Listening to your heart” is terrible

We are told to “just listen to your heart” to find “true love.” However, regardless of how careful we “listen,” 42% of first marriages, 66% of second marriages, and 75% of third marriages end in divorce.

Logically, we would expect divorce rates to decrease rather than increase with each successive marriage. However, the percentages go up, they don’t go down. Why is this? The most likely reason is that we do not learn from our past experience with divorce and choose a new relationship using the same criteria that we used before in our failed relationships.

Requirements: what people logically need for their relationship to be successful

Any successful relationship must meet the specific requirements of both partners in order for it to survive and thrive over time. This is the main objective of the Pre-Engagement relationship development stage1.

If listening to our heart is incomplete, what are we supposed to listen to besides our heart? Our head! You must choose a partner who not only touches your heart, but can also give you what you need. Therefore, it is your responsibility to (1) logically figure out what you need in a relationship and (2) have the courage and discipline to meet your requirements when looking for a new partner.

As defined by David Steele, a Requirement2 is a “non-negotiable event or something necessary for a relationship to work for you.” It is a characteristic of a relationship that is absolutely necessary for the relationship to survive. By definition, the relationship will die without him.

Steele uses the metaphor of air and water to describe the requirements of the relationship. Humans need air and water to live. Having one but not the other will lead to certain death. Relationship requirements have the same quality of need everybody Your requirements met if the relationship is to last. That is, if you have five requirements for a relationship and only four are met, the relationship will die, sooner or later, one way or another, if it really is a requirement.

Problems arise when we confuse what we “require” with what we “want.”

Wishes: good to have but not necessary for the survival of the relationship

Desires3 are “objects and activities that provide stimulation, fun and pleasure.” They are characteristics of a relationship that are desirable, but not necessary for the relationship to last and be successful.

A wish is like having dessert after a meal. It tastes good and makes food more enjoyable, yet you won’t die if you don’t eat one. He also wants to add fun and pleasure to our relationship, but he will not threaten the relationship if it is not fulfilled.

Requirement vs. Want: Why is the distinction so important?

Many relationship problems can be attributed to the confusion of wishes and requirements.

So why is the distinction important? The answer has to do with avoiding two types of errors:

1. End a good relationship you must maintain by treating an unfulfilled wish as an unfulfilled requirement, or

2. Maintaining a disaster-prone relationship that must end by treating an unfulfilled requirement as an unfulfilled desire.

The close call of a woman

A client of mine had been dating a man for nine years. He wanted to get married, but she doubted. She wanted to have an emotionally intimate relationship with her partner where they could freely reveal their deepest feelings for each other, but he refused. Periodically, he would ask her to talk about her feelings. He declined. Over and over again during the nine years they were together, she begged him to express his emotions. He claimed that his father did not talk about his emotions and neither did he.

Everything else about him and their relationship was wonderful. He eventually exhausted her to the point where she was done, although it would be nice to have a partner who was open about her feelings, she could live without it as everything else in the relationship was great. She attributed it to “this is how men are” and began planning her wedding.

Then, six weeks before the ceremony, during an innocent night with his girlfriends, he met a boy who was playing pool. They started a conversation and it struck her like lightning out of nowhere. He was actually talking about his feelings! Not only was he willing to share his feelings, but he truly enjoyed revealing his emotions to her. They talked for hours until closing time.

Through the window came his rationalization that “this is how men are” and in his life came the dilemma of what the hell am I doing now with a wedding that is looming on the horizon?

Two weeks before her wedding, she realized that wishing to marry someone who shared her feelings was not just a pleasant thing to do. want, but in fact it was an authentic, non-negotiable requirement. Fortunately, she had the courage to break up the relationship before it turned into a legal and even more emotional mess.

What was the key for her to know that her desire for a spouse who would talk about her feelings was a requirement, not a desire? The question was asked: “Now that I know that men may Talking about his feelings, will the relationship eventually die if he continues to refuse? She reluctantly replied, “Yes. It was a requirement for her, and not just one more wish.”

So what is the point?

Finding a good relationship requires chemistry Y brains.

While chemistry speaks from the heart, requirements rule from the head. Attention must be paid to both if the relationship is to stand the test of time.

A persistent problem is that our culture gives us bad advice. It tells us that “true love” must do not require any brain power. Such thinking sinks more than 66% of all new marriages.

Therefore, your challenge is to listen to your heart, think through your head, and ignore your friends and family who tell you that you are “overthinking” it and that you risk losing a great partner.

________________

1 David Steele, Conscious dating (Campbell, CA: RCN Press, 2008), p. 301-320.

2 Ibid., P 337.

3 Ibid., P. 301-320.