In the Name of Love

Darling, Should I Cry Over Spilled Milk?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:29:21 +0000

"There is no sense in crying over spilt milk. Why bewail what is done and cannot be recalled?" (Sophocles)

"Never cry over spilt milk, because it may have been poisoned." (W. C. Fields)

"It doesn't matter how much milk you spill, just so long as you don't lose the cow." (Mark Guilbeau)

Are emotional attitudes such as love liable to harbor regrets or dwell on past alternatives or what might have been? Intellectual considerations assume that this would constitute a waste of time and resources, but lovers quite often do experience regret or mourn lost romantic opportunities. Is there any sense in doing this? Should we sometimes cry over spilled milk?

In a goal-oriented society, which is more typical of an intellectual than an emotional society, the past is of little concern: our gaze is directed at the future, where our goals are located. Such a negative attitude toward the past implies that it is not rational to invest resources in past events and we should rather focus our limited resources on future goals. Accordingly, repudiation of the past is a prevalent criterion of rational, intellectual decision making. The negative intellectual attitude toward the past is expressed in various sayings that refer to past failures ("No use crying over spilled milk"), successes ("Don't rest on your laurels"), and events in general ("What's done is done.")

In emotional attitudes, past circumstances of the agent are of great import. Although the past seems to be unchangeable and irremediable, our attitudes toward past events, and hence the impact of the past upon us, is significant. As Faulkner said, "The past isn't dead. It's not even past." Sometimes we should cry over spilled milk, otherwise how will we learn to value milk and how will we avoid spilling it again? One of the best ways to take account of the past is to take account of our emotions, as emotions are shaped by, among other things, past events. The importance of the issue of the availability of an alternative in emotions, that is, what might have been, indicates the importance for emotions of the past.

In describing factors which generate emotional intensity, I have distinguished between two major groups, one referring to the perceived impact of the event eliciting the emotional state and the other to background circumstances of the agents involved in the emotional state. The major variables constituting the event's impact are the strength, reality, and relevance of the event; the major variables constituting the background circumstances are accountability, readiness, and deservingness. Accountability refers to the descriptive issue of who was responsible for the emotional change; readiness refers to the agent's preparedness for the change; deservingness refers to the normative issue of whether the agent has deserved the specific emotional change (see here).

Although the reference to background circumstances may seem to be redundant in our current situation, it has a great functional value in preventing or encouraging future similar experiences. Thus, the more effort we invested in something, the more significant it becomes and the more intense is the emotion surrounding it. As the saying goes: the more you pay, the more it is worth. Hence, the efficiency of the tactic of playing hard to get (see here).

Emotions toward the past are in this sense similar to emotions toward fictional figures. In both cases, the motivational component is present but it is basically focused on our imaginary behavior. Both emotional impact of the past, and the impact of the art seem to be of no practical use, but in fact, they are of great value in shaping our personality and future deeds. The "road not taken" is as significant as the one we ultimately choose

The importance of the past in romantic relationships is associated with the value of a shared history in loving relationship. This shared history is very important in friendship, which is an important part in romantic love. The circumstances in which two people first met and each person's behavior, attitudes, and experiences in the different periods of their time together are indeed important features in the formation of their romantic love toward each other.
However, focusing all our attention on the past would prevent us from seeing the present and the future. So a balance must be struck between the spilled milk and that which is before us now, which we still have to drink. It is evident that it can be destructive to give too much weight and attention to our past failures and successes, but neglecting the past can be equally destructive.

In certain cases, it is unwise to cry over spilled milk. When one loving relationship ends, there is no reason to continue to live in the past; in many cases, the best route to take is to look forward to the next meaningful relationship. The demise of one love does not imply the end of one's love life. However, our lives would be very shallow and greatly reduced if we were to attempt to blot out the past.

To achieve a balance between the past and the future requires us to integrate our emotional attitudes, which are largely based upon past experience, and our intellectual deliberations, which focus on the future. The integration of the past into the present and the future is highly important if we are to lay the groundwork for a happy and satisfied future.

The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, although I love you for who you are, please also remember that I was lonely and depressed when we first met and in such circumstances, I would have fallen in love with almost anyone. And one more thing: I do try (albeit not always successfully) to forget the one who dumped me."

Darling, Do You Really Want To Reject Me?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:21:27 +0000

"I'll never know what made you run away, I only know there's nothing in this wide world, left for me to see." (The Brothers Four)

"Love of my life don't leave me, Bring it back bring it back,
Don't take it away from me, Because you don't know what it means to me" (Queen)

"What have I got to do to make you love me?" (Elton John)

Romantic Ideology describes the best case scenario of love that only very few people will ever experience-a passionate love that lasts forever. A more common experience in the romantic realm is that of separation, which is often interpreted as rejection. The essential role of love in our life, and our profound personal involvement in love, makes such separation very painful.

People look for a heavenly haven in love. The intensity of love and the perceived unity of the lovers create the illusion of feeling secure: the desire to live happily ever after in the safety of the beloved's arms underlies romantic love. However, love is not safe, but rather risky. Lovers are quite vulnerable to the risk of being separated from the object of their love. The dynamic and changing nature of love constantly threatens its existence. Lovers wish their love to last forever; however, they are aware how fragile and transitory love can be.

Adhering to Romantic Ideology, which assumes that love is eternal, eternal, not susceptible to waning, and invulnerable to any threat, complicates and intensifies the painful situation of the rejected person. In such a case, it is harder to interpret romantic rejection as a normal behavior which could happen to anyone. There is no evaluative (or ideological) framework in which the rejected lover can find consolation. On the contrary, the framework he or she believes in denies such an option, as the Carpenters ask about the reason why the sun goes on shining and the sea rushes to shore: "Don't they know it's the end of the world, because you don't love me anymore?"

The pain of romantic separation is exacerbated by the feeling of personal failure, because of the expectation that it should be otherwise (even when the current divorce rate is quite high). This may explain why people take romantic separation, and in particular romantic rejection, in such a harsh manner. It is evident that the separated or rejected lover can find another lover who may even be more suitable; nevertheless, some lovers cannot stand the separation or rejection and commit suicide or kill their beloved. Romantic rejection is painful not merely because of the event itself, but also because of the damage it inflicts upon our self-esteem, which is determined to some extent by the way people evaluate us. Public knowledge of our failures typically hurts our self-esteem.

It is interesting to mention that men often take romantic rejection in a more dramatic manner than women: men are three to four times more likely than women to commit suicide after a love affair has decayed.

When our responsibility for a certain event is reduced, emotional intensity decreases as well (see here). Accordingly, people are less distressed by rejection when it is due to external circumstances. Such circumstances reduce the relevancy of the event to the rejectee's self-esteem and hence reduce the event's strength.

Accordingly, the reasons people prefer to give for refusing dates are primarily impersonal, uncontrollable, and unstable, even though the true reasons may be quite different. The major reason for telling such "white lies" is concern about the rejectee's possible emotional reaction. People are less distressed by rejection when it is due to impersonal reasons ("I'm going out of town") than when it is due to their own characteristics ("You're a boring person"). A common excuse in this regard is "You are too good for me." People are also less upset by uncontrollable reasons (the rejector has to study that night) than controllable ones (the rejector does not want to go to a movie that night). Reducing controllability here reduces emotional intensity. In addition, reasons that are unstable and temporary (the rejector is ill) are less disheartening than more stable, permanent reasons (the rejector is engaged to be married). Unstable, temporary reasons diminish the reality of the rejection somewhat and hence emotional intensity is reduced (see here).

The phenomenon of refusing dates by offering reasons which reduce the hurt to the other person is so common by now that it is no longer so effective. In the television show Seinfeld, a woman who wants to stop dating George explains: "It's not you (who is to be blamed for this), it's me." This hurts George, mostly because he claims that no one else should be entitled to use this line, which he believes he invented and has often used. Indeed, in another episode, George, in an attempt to get rid of his current girlfriend, says: "You can do better than me. You could throw a dart out the window and hit someone better than me. I'm no good!"

Although we are willing to reduce pain for the person from whom we wish to separate, there are some limits to what we are prepared to do for other people. For example, a man may plan to offer several reasons in order to reduce the personal liability of the woman from whom he wants to separate, but in their next meeting she anticipates him and suggests the value of such a separation, while, of course, trying to reduce his personal liability. Such a situation is bound to hurt the man. It is true that there is now no danger that the woman will be hurt from the separation (and this was his primary purpose), but preventing the hurt was not achieved by a generous (though superficial) sacrifice on his behalf, but in a manner which could places him as the inferior-after all, he knows that the reasons given are merely an attempt to reduce his pain and are not genuine.

The wish to fuse with the beloved and to form a single unit is understandable in light of the greatest fear of lovers: separation. The solution for preventing the separation from the beloved is that of making the beloved an inseparable part of the lover (see here).

The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, if you want to reject my love, please do it in a considerate manner-if possible, one that will lead me to think that actually it is I who wish to reject you."

What Do We Really Desire?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:49:22 +0000

"We always long for the forbidden things, and desire what is denied us." Francois Rebelais

"Burning desire to be or do something gives us staying power - a reason to get up every morning or to pick ourselves up and start in again after a disappointment." Marsha Sinetar

There are many aspects influencing our romantic desires, some of which relate to personality characteristics and others to circumstantial factors. In this post I would like to focus upon two major aspects-the aspect of attainability and the aspect of the reality of what we desire. With regard to this issue, there are two prevailing claims: a) our desire is greater when the object is real and attainable; (b) our desire is greater when the object is imaginary and unattainable. Which claim is correct? Do we desire the one we have more than we desire the one we imagine having? There are good arguments for both claims.

The major argument for the first claim is that something real is more relevant to us. Indeed, the more real the situation, the more intense is the emotion (if all other factors are equal). Hence, a very strong event, which may be quite relevant to our well-being, may not provoke excitement if we succeed in considering it as fantasy: the emotional intensity decreases accordingly. Thus, despite the horrifying impact of a potential nuclear holocaust, many people do not allow this to upset them, since they do not consider the event to be a real possibility.

Two major arguments that support the claim that the imaginary and the unattainable arouse our desire more are based upon the more exciting nature of imaginary and incomplete experiences.

As imagination seems to have no limits, its content can be more exciting. Anyone who so wishes can imagine his beloved was Miss World, but most people would not consider their spouse to be quite so beautiful.

The romantic unattainable has the characteristic of "unfinished business"; it is an experience that has not yet arrived at the desired state-in this sense, it is incomplete. In contrast to how we feel about what we already have, we are typically excited by anything that is incomplete, unsettled, unexplained, or uncertain. When the situation becomes stable and normal, there is no reason for the mental system to be on the alert and to invest further resources. (see here)

All the aforementioned arguments are indeed valid, and we need to see how their elements can be combined into a desirable emotional experience.

In examining the notion of "emotional reality" two major senses should be discerned: (a) ontological, and (b) epistemological. The first sense refers to whether the event actually exists or is merely imaginary. The second sense is concerned with relationships of the event to other events (see here).

Referring to the ontological sense of reality, we may say that emotions aroused by imaginary objects are less intense than those elicited by actually existing objects. When we know that the danger actually exists, we are more frightened than when we suspect that the danger is illusory. Likewise, we are less envious of a successful person in a movie than of an actually existing successful person. The epistemological sense of emotional reality relies on the vividness of the object. We receive information from various sources and with varying degrees of vividness. Pictures are most vivid due to the vast amount of information supplied by vision; hence, their importance in our everyday life. A picture, or better still, a film-clip, of one wounded child has usually more emotional impact than reports about thousands killed. A picture is worth a thousand words.

The most desirable emotional experience will combine real features that actually exist with imaginary ones that enhance the desire. Thus, a movie that is based upon true story is more exciting (if all other factors are equal) than a purely fictional movie.

Although imagination describes events which do not obey all normal regularities and are not constrained by the laws of nature, this does not mean that it knows no regularity or constraints at all. On the contrary, unlike free-form fantasy, emotional imagination is often strongly constrained by various factors. In order for such imagination to generate greater desire, it is important that it be perceived as real, that is, as resembling reality in some sense.

Consider the following description of a prostitute who used to work for the Hollywood Madam, Heidi Fleiss: "Heidi gave me an outline on the client. Some were turned on by sexy lingerie, others by dirty talk; some wanted hard-to-get, others, bad girls; some preferred a natural look, others requested lots of makeup and big hair. It was my job to flesh out the small details, make the fantasy real." No doubt, fantasies were most important in generating male sexual desire in the above cases, but the prostitute's job was to guarantee that these fantasies would look very real.

Accordingly, Olivia St. Clair offers her readers, who are ready to unleash their sex goddess, to make their fantasies as real as possible by adding a dash of tactile reality, for example, a filmy scarf for their harem sojourn or juicy fruits for their fantasy love with Tom Jones." Similarly, works of art provide us with imaginary situations, but their authors make us believe in their reality by referring to real everyday events.

In generating emotions, what role does the factor of "being attainable" play? This factor is one of the features of reality. Something that is attainable is real in the ontological sense-it is not merely a fantasy but is rather something that exists and that could be experienced immediately. However, something that is attainable needs no attention since it is likely to be perceived as being granted already. On the other hand, incomplete experiences, which are a kind of unfinished business, are more desirable because, among other aspects, they require more effort to be invested in them, which can cause them to be perceived as more worthy. Hence, those who play hard to get often make themselves more desirable (see here).

However, here too there is a need to combine the elements of being attainable and unattainable in order to increase desire. Thus, although "playing hard to get" is a most effective strategy for attracting a partner, when the required effort is too immense and the probability of its success is low, people may give up the idea of pursuing someone who is playing hard to get and may not invest the necessary extra effort necessary to "win" the player. At a certain point, an increase in the required effort decreases emotional intensity since people begin to believe that the outcome for which effort is being invested is actually unattainable and hence unreal.

Without doubt, life is complex and there is no simple answer to the question of whether attainability and reality increase or decrease romantic desire because there are a variety of different aspects at play that are sensitive to various personality traits and changing circumstances. Nevertheless, we can perceive a model that suggests the manner in which our desire develops in this regard. It seems certain that various types of attainability and reality do play -- to varying degrees and in different manners -- a significant role in the intensity of romantic desire.

Superficial Joys and Profound Happiness

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:35:05 +0000

What do you take me for, an idiot? Charles de Gaulle, when a journalist asked him if he was happy.

My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met! Rodney Dangerfield

We can distinguish between two types of experiences that are referred to as "happiness": one is the transitory emotion of joy and the other is the profound sentiment of happiness. In a somewhat similar manner, we can speak about the transitory emotion of erotic joy and the sentiment of profound love. Although it is the profound experiences for which we typically look, in most cases these profound experiences require the presence of superficial joys. However, having those superficial joys does not ensure the generation of profound happiness and love.

An experience consisting of mere superficial joy, or sexual desire, may include immediately rewarding, relatively short-lived pleasure. Profound happiness is typically associated with optimal functioning using and developing the agent's essential capacities and attitudes in a systematic manner over a sustained period of time. Profound happiness is to be found in complex activities that we value for their own sake. Profound love is similar.

A distinction can be drawn between superficial pleasure and profound satisfaction. Superficial pleasure is an immediately rewarding, relatively short-lived experience requiring few or no profound human capacities. Profound satisfaction involves optimal functioning, using and developing the agent's essential capacities and attitudes. Part of profound satisfaction is the ability to overcome problems and make some progress. The optimal functioning of human beings differs from the minimal functioning of animals, which involves mere contentment or relaxation. People suffering from advanced states of senility, and infants, often have pleasant moods, but those are not the profound satisfaction typically sought after by healthy adults, many of whom would rather be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied pig. If we were satisfied with superficial pleasure, we would have no incentive to pursue our ambitions or to seek fulfilling activities. In the long run, this would make us miserable. Gorging ourselves on consumer goods may give us short-term pleasure, but it is unlikely to make us substantially happier; gluttony is not the same as nourishment (see here).

Happiness cannot be achieved by merely repeating superficial pleasant experiences. An enjoyable event is often progressively less enjoyable with repetition. A new acquisition, highly valued at first, comes to seem ordinary. Hence, acquisitions alone cannot provide us with profound, enduring satisfaction. Happiness is not an isolated achievement, but rather an ongoing dynamic process. And so is profound love-never an isolated achievement but an ongoing experience of being together.

As an acute emotion, happiness is a short-term state of pleasure or satisfaction occurring as a result of a specific (real or imaginary) positive change. Even a person who is generally depressed can laugh from time to time and be pleased with a specific event. Senile people and infants may often be satisfied or contented with their situation. They may also be described as having a certain degree of happiness, but this is not the profound sentiment of happiness typical of healthy adults and desired by them. Profound happiness involves the optimal functioning of human beings, not the minimal functioning of mere contentment or relaxation which can be found in the life of dumb animals.

In light of its dynamic and ongoing nature an important factor in generating our profound happiness is the frequency with which people experience the occasional emotion of happiness and other positive emotions; this factor has been found to be the single best predictor of happiness as a sentiment. In a sense, happiness as a sentiment consists of the acute emotions of happiness; so a succession of specific positive experiences will increase our long-term happiness. Combining the two factors together generates the following practical advice suggested by the psychologist David Lykken: "A steady diet of simple pleasures will keep you above your set point. Find the small things that you know give you a little high-a good meal, working in the garden, time with friends-and sprinkle your life with them. In the long run, that will leave you happier than some grand achievement that gives you a big lift for a while."

Like happiness, profound love also does not consist mainly of a few magic great moments; rather, we need a steady diet of simple pleasures with our beloved. Profound love is not made up of some kind of heavenly substance, but of the ordinary, everyday substance of regular life, which becomes heavenly when shared with your beloved. In some cases this type of transformation can be easy and natural; in others it requires sweat and tears. There is no money-back guarantee for the success of this transformation, but when it succeeds, it yields great happiness.

Ultimately, our life may be easier than we thought: we do not have to choose between superficial joys and profound happiness (or love), as the latter encompasses the former. However, although the road to profound happiness and love involves many superficial joys, the presence of such joys does not ensure that these profound experiences will necessarily emerge. Life, after all, is not so easy. But as George Bernard Shaw said: "Life is not meant to be easy, my child; but take courage-it can be delightful."

Compromising on Passion or on Companionship

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:52:04 +0000

"They say it is better to be poor and happy than rich and miserable, but how about a compromise like moderately rich and just moody?" Princess Diana

"Compromise is when one person wants to rob a bank and the other person does not, and they compromise to rob a person outside of the bank." Christopher Myers

In many instances, people are confronted by the need to decide between two major types of romantic compromises when deciding on which partner they should select. These compromises involve compromising on passion or compromising on companionship. In the first type of compromise, people decide to forgo the passionate aspect of a relationship and base their choice of a partner on the likelihood that she or he will be an excellent spouse, parent or provider. In the second type of compromise, intense passion is prioritized, while issues such as companionship, establishing a family, or supporting one's personal development is accorded less importance .

Consider the (real) case of Ariel, a married woman who is now in her fifties. When she was 27, she faced a decision that demanded a romantic compromise: Whether to marry a young man who she loved passionately or to marry a divorced 50 year old who she loved, but not passionately. She chose the older person as she thought that he would be better able to bring out the best in her and help her to realize her potential. When she looks back on her life, she has no regrets whatsoever-time has only deepened her love for her husband. Ariel says that she has never believed in Romantic Ideology, as she has never liked illusions or fantasies. She places particular importance on her personal space and freedom. In all the places they have lived, she has had a separate bedroom and an office of her own. They have mostly lived apart, but they speak on the phone several times a day and when they meet on weekends, they take great pleasure in their time together.

The opposite (real) case is that of Veronica, a married woman with six children, who divorced her well-established husband and married her previously married lover, who had four children of his own. Now, ten years after the divorce, Veronica is still very happy with her choice and says that she cannot imagine a better romantic relationship than the one she has now. Both her life before her divorce and her current husband's life before his divorce were fine, but there was no real passion; neither of them had considered leaving their previous spouses till they met each other.

Veronica belongs to the group of romantic people who cannot be in a loving relationship that lacks passion. For these people, a lack of passion is a lack of love. Ariel, like other more realistic people, believes that love is so much more than intense passion, which often lessens in intensity as time goes by; for them, love is something more profound that should last for a long time.

Compromising on passion is sometimes expressed by men in the following terms: "This is the woman I want to be the mother of my children." The men who voice this wish do not necessarily consider this woman as the most attractive, but they do see her as the best person with whom to raise a family. Similarly, women may consider a certain man to be the best person with whom to raise a family and to provide suitable companionship, even though he might not be a great lover. The greatest lover is not necessarily the finest parent or the best provider.

The split between the ideal passionate lover and the best companion implies that choosing the latter does not necessarily demand a profound compromise, since one is choosing the optimal person in the given overall situation. Nevertheless, this does involve a compromise on romantic passion, which many people are prepared to make.

Recognizing that there is often a split between the ideal lover and the best companion helps people live with their compromise on romantic passion. Thus, no one would say to his beloved, "I love you darling, although this love is a compromise for me." Such a declaration, although it may be true, would be insulting and would make the other person feel second-rate (see here). But if one is chosen as a partner because one is the optimal choice for making a life together, then one would not be a compromise in terms of this crucial aspect. And people can live with that.

Are any changes occurring in modern society concerning the prevalence of these types of compromises? I believe that less people are ready to relinquish the chance of passionate romance.

An indication of this is present in a study undertaken in the mid-1960s found that men are more "romantically" oriented, and women, more "realistically": 64 percent of the men, but only 24 percent of the women, said that they would not marry a person possessing all other qualities they admired, but with whom they were not in love. However, when this study was revisited some twenty years later, women were found to have grown significantly more romantic and had closed the gap with men. One important explanation for this change is women's entry into the workforce: less dependent on the institution of marriage for their economic survival, women could now "afford" to marry for purely romantic reasons (see here).

Economic developments in modern society has reduced the need to choose, or to stay with ,"a good provider" and this allows for greater freedom in our choice of a partner, which means we can focus on finding a mate with whom we are passionately in love. In cases where the combination of the two aspects of passion and companionship are not to be found in one person, an increasing number of people choose to have relationships with more than one person in order to satisfy both needs.

The abundance of opportunities to engage in passionate romantic love affairs means that the number of people who are ready to live without such passion is steadily decreasing. In this sense, we are witnessing the comeback of love (see here and here). Nevertheless, although compromising on romantic passion might become less common, I doubt whether it will ever fully disappear.

Darling, Are You Suspicious of Me?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:45:58 +0000

"He that is not jealous, is not in love." Saint Augustine
"We can't go on together with suspicious minds, and we can't build our dreams on suspicious minds." Elvis Presley

Jealousy stems from the desire to be "favored" in some respect and the fear that one is not. This fear might be based upon hard evidence, such as when your partner leaves you for another person; in this case, reactive jealousy is generated. Here, you have to cope with a harsh new environment in which you have lost your present relationship and a new one has been established without you. Suspicious jealousy is another type of jealousy, which is not based on the actual deeds of our partner, but merely on our state of mind. Suspicious jealousy is harder to bear as we are not sure what the real situation is and the optimal course of action is unclear.

Robert Rydell and Robert Bringle have suggested that greater reactive jealousy is related to greater relationship dependency, greater trust, and lower chronic jealousy. Persons who displayed more suspicious jealousy experienced greater insecurity, greater anxiety attachment, greater avoidance attachment, greater chronic jealousy, and lower self-esteem. In this post, I will discuss suspicious jealousy (see also here).

Signs of suspicious jealousy include, among other things, constant negative emotions toward the partner; prowling around and checking on the partner's activities; spying on the partner's telephone calls, messages, and e mails; going through the partner's personal belongings; and being suspicious and feeling insecure when the partner gives attention to someone who may be a potential rival. Insecurity and an active imagination are crucial aspects in suspicious jealousy. These thoughts are irrational most of the time; they are painful at all times.

The greater pain of suspicious jealousy stems, among other things, from the fact that we are typically excited by anything that is incomplete, unsettled, unexplained, or uncertain, as we perceive it to be unusual and so it demands our attention and thoughts. When the situation becomes stable, there is no reason for the mental system to be on the alert and invest further resources. Ambiguous states have this kind of incomplete nature and hence have a certain lure and danger.

Furthermore, extramarital affairs usually have the nature of unfinished business, as they are not complete and comprehensive in the way that normal primary relationships are. In such affairs, lovers might feel profound satisfaction, but they still desire more and yearn for even deeper fulfillment. Unfinished business does not imply merely expectations, but suffering too, since the element of frustration at not having achieved what we really desire is central here.

Suspicion has a dynamic of expansion; it is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. The initial seeds of doubts about the partner's fidelity give rise to a larger scope of doubts and uncertainties. The person's suspicion becomes the prism through which the world receives its meaning. Suspicion colors the person's picture of reality and supplies a permanent device for interpreting the partner's behavior. The person is constantly testing the partner's behavior. Every type of behavior, every action or word starts to be interpreted as a sign of something else, an indicator that supports and exacerbates the sense of distrust. Thus, in an infinite vicious circle, the more reasons the person finds for jealousy, the more solid the suspicion becomes and the easier it is to find more such apparent reasons. The violent energy of jealousy accumulates inside the lover and devours him from within. (see here).

Since suspicion generates greater attention from the partner, there are cases in which people deliberately behave in a suspicious romantic manner in order to increase their partner's attention on them. As their suspicious behavior makes their partner fear that the relationship is threatened, the partner enhances both the level of attention and the desire to maintain, nurture, and protect the relationship.

We may compare suspicion with teasing. One definition of teasing is to laugh at someone or say unkind things about them, either because you are joking or because you want to upset them. Both suspicion and teasing involve ambiguity (in teasing it is about whether you are joking or not) and hence uncertainty. In both cases, there is an increased interest and emotional excitement. In suspicion the uncertainty concerns negative events; in teasing it may involve positive events and playful experiences. Teasing is often a kind of play with the beloved; suspicion arises from doubts concerning the beloved's play (or worse) with another person.

The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, asking me all the time where I have been and why drives both of us crazy and undermines our relation. So can you please refrain from doing it? And one more thing: If you do suspect me of infidelity, please imagine me with Brad Pitt rather than with our neighbor."

Darling, Should I Try To Improve You?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 02:08:54 +0000

"Women marry men hoping they will change. Men marry women hoping they will not. So each is inevitably disappointed." Albert Einstein.

"Don't go changing, to try and please me... I love you just the way you are" (Billy Joel)

Should we try to improve our beloved? Doing so involves two major characteristics of romantic love: (a) being in love implies loving the person as she is and not wanting to change her, and (b) loving means caring and the wish to improve the situation of the beloved. Those two characteristics are not always compatible.

Consider the following complaints made by Natalie: "My hubby claims that he criticizes me because he loves me. He wants me to improve and he has high expectations of me. He does not care about other people; hence he does not correct them. Is that logical? Maybe it is, but it is also hurtful."

It should be noted that Natalie's situation differs from the popular wisdom as expressed in the above quotation from Einstein, who claims that women are usually the ones who want to change their men's behavior. Leaving aside this issue of gender, the wish to change the partner is problematic.

Without doubt, everyone is undergoing changes all the time and most of these changes are spontaneously generated. People are continually acquiring more experience and accommodating themselves to their changing circumstances. Changing because of the influence of other people is natural and should be expected. The problematic aspect emerges when the lover requires the change in order to improve the beloved. The nature and the extent of the required change are highly relevant here. Typically, it is improper to demand that someone else makes a profound change in their personality trait, as that is seldom possible alter. However, it can be both feasible and proper to require the person to make changes in their behavior or activities.

As someone wrote in a blog discussing this issue, "I wish people could just accept people for who they are BEFORE they get involved. People are who they are. They don't ever change. Not really. You can change the situation and the environment around someone, but people are who they are. If there is something you don't like about your man (or woman), they are not the one for you. Find someone who you are ok with as they are!" Indeed, we really should try to appreciate the beloved for who he is and not for who he could be. Trying to improve the beloved can be insulting since it could be interpreted that the beloved is deficient.

Despite the above difficulties, the wish to change the beloved is natural. As the Bible (Proverbs, 3:12) puts it, "For whom He loves, He rebukes." We are not indifferent toward the beloved, but rather we want to improve him. If we do not love someone, there is no reason to correct him. Loving someone may require giving him not only compliments but also suggestions for change. This should be done in a sensitive manner, and in general, such suggestions are best accompanied by praise for or some reference to those facets that we appreciate in him.

Love involves the attempt to improve aspects that can be improved, while cherishing those features that are part and parcel of the other's identity. Devastating criticism is hard to associate with genuine romantic love. It is necessary and appropriate for each of us to accommodate our behavior in order to enhance our present relationship, but we cannot reform ourselves to meet our partner's ideal, nor can we try to be what we are not.
The right of the lover to suggest changes in the beloved's behavior implies that there are cases in which the lover knows better than the beloved how to make the beloved happier. Indeed, an outsider may sometimes know better than the person herself what is good for her. The whole business of psychological therapy is built upon this assumption. Sometimes people give us good advice to follow. But it is almost always imperative that the person herself should be the one to make the final decision.

An interesting issue in this regard concerns the identity of the benefiting party. Is it the changing person, the proposed changed person, or the world around us? Do I base my request that the person changes on my wish to be happier, on the prospect that she will be happier, or on the possibility that it will make the world a better place in which to live? Although making us happier and improving the world are worthy causes, they are demands that we should first put on ourselves, not on others, and in any case they cannot take precedence over the well-being of our partner. Improving the well-being of our partner is of greater moral value, but the way in which this is achieved cannot be imposed upon the partner.

The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, I love you so much, but do not try to alter me. I believe I know quite well how to fold my clothes and how to wash the dishes. Please love me as I am, since I am not the worst choice you could have made; our neighbor would have been much worse (or so I am told)."

Darling, Do You Take Your Love Seriously?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:04:43 +0000

"I feel like Zsa Zsa Gabor's eighth husband on her wedding night: I know what I'm supposed to do...I just have to figure out a way to make it interesting."

A few months after the start of his relationship with his girlfriend, a man told her, "I love you, darling," to which she replied, "That is a very serious statement; you should think it over." He responded, "My love is certainly serious, but I do not have to think about it, because it feels so natural to me." Is love a serious emotion? And if so, how should it be expressed?

The dictionary gives various definitions of what is meant by 'being serious.' It offers meanings such as important, substantial, extreme, deeply interested, earnest, without humor, thoughtful, and uncompromising. In many of these related senses, love is indeed a serious matter. Lovers perceive their love as important and substantial in its scope and are deeply interested in their beloved. Love is undertaken and pursued in an earnest and sincere manner. Love is often perceived as extreme, sometimes even excessive, in its quality and extent. Sometimes it is perceived to be so extreme that certain people never even dare to declare their love; others delay until it is too late.

Love is not necessarily serious in the sense of being thoughtful, since it can be a spontaneous attitude that does not require thought-provoking discussions. It is not entirely clear whether love is serious in being uncompromising. The substantial and extreme attitudes in love indicates that love is often uncompromising; but living with another person raises the need for compromises that in some instances can indicate that we take ourselves or our wishes lightly, it that we do not hold fast to them and are prepared to give them up for the sake of the relationship (see here).

I will discuss here whether love is serious in that it is without humor. It seems that love expresses our profound happiness and involves a lot of play and humor; sometimes love allows us to take things lightheartedly. Are these characteristics compatible with the seriousness of love?

Emotions are partial in two basic senses: they are focused on a narrow target, such as on one person or a very few people; and they express a personal and interested perspective. Emotions direct and color our attention by selecting what attracts and holds our attention; they make us preoccupied with some things and oblivious to others. The partial nature of emotions makes them serious in the sense of being substantial and intense, but not in the sense of being comprehensive. The partial aspect of emotions prevents them from being closely associated with humor.

At the basis of humor is the ability to encompass several perspectives at the same time. In jokes, for example, we are led in a certain direction and then the punch line takes us in another, unexpected direction. The ability to hold these opposing perspectives simultaneously makes us laugh. Emotions also involve incongruity as they are generated by changes, but in emotions the simultaneous presence of incongruent perspectives is problematic and requires immediate practical action; in humor the incongruity is enjoyable and requires no action. The action required in the emotional situation is intended to eliminate the incongruity-in the case of negative events to return the situation to its original state, and in the case of positive events to maintain the new improved situation.

In contrast to the practical orientation of emotions, humor involves a more abstract and less purposeful activity. We often use humor in order to block emotions such as fear, anger, or sorrow, or to resolve tensions. Humor is not a joke for nature. Its survival value consists, at least in part, in its functioning as a counterweight to the strong influence exerted by emotions and moods on our behavior.

A sense of humor is thus often incompatible with extreme emotional states. The ability to entertain several perspectives simultaneously is typical of humor and moderate positions and is contrary to the partial nature of emotions. The ability to entertain several alternatives is also a sign of mental health. For example, a person who suffers from paranoia cannot see that there are available alternatives to the situation in which he finds himself. Indeed, people often describe their emotionality as a state in which they are unable to think clearly and, in particular, are unable to appreciate others' points of view.

Despite its seriousness in other aspects, romantic love involves a sense of humor and the enjoyable process of playing that are typical of flirting. Like flirting, humor involves opposite aspects. A sense of humor indicates that we feel good about ourselves, but also that we do not attach too much importance to ourselves. The use of humor and flirting in romantic relationships is not accidental-it reflects the ongoing nature of such a relationship. Greater excitement and extra joy is brought into the relationship by introducing the playfulness and humor that are essential parts of flirting. Those games are not intended to change the type of a romantic relationship, but merely to provide a lighthearted and pleasurable aspect.

Romantic compromises also express a sense of taking oneself not too serious. One is ready in compromise to give up some of one's values and attitudes for the greater value of being with other people. Hence, one does not attach to one's attitude such a serious importance. This can sometimes have some advantages. As someone said, "Angels can fly since they take themselves lightly." Accordingly, Julia, a married woman, said: "As I think more profoundly about life and love is that we take it all too serious. Life should be taken sincerely and wholeheartedly, but sometimes we are just too full of it and ourselves." From another perspective, however, if compromising results from the fact that we do not take our stands seriously, it might prove to be one of our most serious (in the sense of profound) actions.

The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, my love for you is serious, because I regard it as important, earnest, substantial, and caring. However, my serious love also includes our most enjoyable and humorous times together. I think that we should not take ourselves too seriously; we should leave some time for humor and playful activities that are exciting and provide a taste of life. And another thing, darling: if love is not humorous, why is having sex euphemistically referred to as ‘having fun'?"

Loving Too Much

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:07:17 +0000

"I love you much too much, I've known it from the start, but yet my love is such, I can't control my heart" Dean Martin

"Too much of a good thing is wonderful." Mae West

Love is morally desirable as it entails profound care for another person. It is hard to see how such positive care can be criticized. Nevertheless, people do criticize lovers and especially those whose love appears to be excessive. Can one tell one's beloved that he loves her too much?

Romantic love is described in idealistic terms as something huge, uncompromising, and without limitations. Statements like "The world has changed, everything is different now," "Loving him is wonderful; my whole being expands into unprecedented realms," "I am surrounded by nothing but you" are common among lovers. If "All you need is love," and "You are everything I need," then it is difficult to see how love can be criticized as being excessive.

There is indeed a view claiming that unlike other emotions, love cannot be criticized since it consists of disinterested care for the beloved, which involves promoting only her well-being. According to this view, the value of love is not determined, or at least not entirely determined, by its practical value as a means to achieve certain of the lover's ends; rather, it focuses upon the well-being of the beloved. Accordingly, we would not usually criticize a person who is deeply and happily in love with someone just because we think he could have found a better partner.

However, even if love were concerned solely with disinterested care for the beloved (and this is not obviously so), there is still the question of what constitutes proper caring. Love is not a merely theoretical attitude; it has profound behavioral implications for our life. And if such behavior becomes improper, then the issue of whether one can love too much might arise (contrary to the above view).

Emotions might be harmful when they are excessive. Emotional excess is harmful for the same reasons that other kinds of excess are harmful. As in other emotions, excessiveness in love can impede the lover from seeing a broader perspective. Even normal cases of romantic love tend to create a narrow temporal perspective that focuses on the beloved and is often oblivious to other considerations. Accordingly, it has been argued that it is impossible to love and be wise and that the true opposite of love is justice. Little wonder then that, as Stevie Wonder puts it, "All in love is fair."

Although it is difficult to define what constitutes excessiveness in love, characterizing love as "too much" implies that some damage has been done-either to the lover or the beloved. When intense love blinds our sight and makes us act improperly, people may say that such intense love is too much. A remark such as, "I couldn't help it, I was madly in love with her," indicates that sometimes love can be excessive.

Loving too much can be problematic when it hurts the lover, which typically occurs in the long term. The lover's intense love might be excessive in the sense that it prevents her from realizing the true nature of their relationship. For example, her intense love might prevent her from noticing, or at least admitting, that his attitude toward her is humiliating or that their relationship has very little chance of surviving in the long term. Hence, contrary to the claim cited above, it is possible to criticize someone's profound love on the grounds that such intense love prevents him from seeing his partner's faults or from recognizing that he could choose another partner who might make him happier and more satisfied in the longer run. For this reason, classical art often depicts the God of love Cupid as blind indicating that lovers are blind to the faults or the unsuitability of the one they love.

Lovers may also feel that they love too much when they believe that their beloveds do not love them to the same extent. When a lover feels that she gives more than she gets, she will feel that she loves her partner too much. If she feels that she gets more or less what she gives, the feeling of loving too much is unlikely to arise. Needless to say, love should not be a mechanical calculation of what we give and get, but where there is a profound lack of reciprocity, it is natural to feel one is loving too much (see here). People who love too much often keep investing in a relationship that has no chance of surviving as their beloved does not love them to the same extent.

Loving too much may also hurt the beloved. A typical example of this is when the lover does not allow the beloved to enjoy sufficient private space. This behavior occurs in minor forms in many relationships, although it is typically a characteristic of pathological cases. Thus, a man who killed his girlfriend (in his view, he did so out of love) said, "Once she said to me: you love me too much, and I don't like that. You invest so much." (see here). It should be noted that the wish to be with each other as much as possible is a main characteristic of love and not an external feature of it. The nature of the private space is determined by the given personalities and by other factors, such as the stage in which the relationship is currently. Thus, this wish may be more pronounced in the infatuation stage, when it makes little sense to accuse lovers of loving too much.

With regard to parental love, some might claim that loving a child too much could be harmful as it can spoil her. Others might argue that the problem here is not in loving the child too much, but in not understanding what is good for her in the short and long term. To this one might respond that it is precisely the nature of intense emotions not to realize the genuine nature of the given circumstances.

Profound romantic love is not in its nature excessively wrong; but some cases of such love have a greater chance of being so.

The above view can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, my love to you is so profound and intense and I will maintain it for the rest of my life. But if you feel somewhat uncomfortable with how I express this love, please whisper this in my ear, while not forgetting to also kiss it."

Darling, How Should We Resolve Our Conflicts?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:20:33 +0000

"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." Benjamin Franklin
"To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest." Mahatma Gandhi
"All married couples should learn the art of battle as they should learn the art of making love." Ann Landers

There are various activities that we use for coping with conflicts in our romantic relationships. These activities range from one-sided activities, such as coercion and surrender, to the most interactive ones, such as compromise and complementation. Here are a few major activities for coping with conflicts:
1. Coercing-coercing the other into accepting something negative;
2. Unilateral concession-accepting something negative without getting anything in return.
3. Tolerating-accepting something negative while maintaining a strong negative attitude toward it.
4. Compensating-something is given in order to compensate for loss, suffering, or injury (which has often been inflicted by some kind of coercing).
5. Compromising-accepting something negative in order to obtain something positive in return.
6. Complementing-combining characteristics from various parties to form a complete whole enhancing each party.
7. Accommodating-the process by which the positive aspects gain greater weight to the extent that the negative ones almost (or even entirely) disappear.
8. Settling-the process by which the negative aspects gain greater weight to the extent that the positive ones almost (or even entirely) disappear.
The first four activities, coercing, unilateral concession, tolerating, and compensating, are essentially one-sided activities; as such they are not helpful in resolving most conflicts. The next two activities, compromising and complementing, are the major methods of seeking a positive solution to conflicts. The last two activities, accommodating and settling, are processes by which we cope with a given conflict resolution.

The first two activities, coercing and unilateral concession, are the most one-sided; they do not involve any consideration of the other and even display a profound wish to disassociate from the other. Sometimes, when no other type of interaction is feasible, disconnecting oneself from the other is the only remaining option. Unilateral concession seems to be the more moral way, as it offers the other greater freedom, but it is unhelpful in the long run as it demeans the giver and resentment is likely to accumulate. When intimate personal relationships involve submissiveness, they morally unjust and problems are bound to occur, since such relationships need to express the value of each person in the relationship.

Tolerance and compensation are still one-sided, but less so than coercing and concession. Tolerance involves concession, but it is a more temporary and limited concession. It can be described as a tactical concession compared with the strategic one associated with unilateral concession. In tolerance we accept the negative recourse, not because we think it is good, but because we believe it is the best solution in the present circumstances (which could change in the future). (see here)

Compensation is defined as "something, such as money, given or received as payment or reparation, as for a service or loss or injury." In compensation we do not change whatever it is that we did, which is typically a unilateral decision or action that we took without consulting the other. Compensation is often not a solution to the conflict, but a measure that might facilitate the healing of the wounds caused by an unfavorable resolution. In compensation there is no real engagement between the two parties; there is only a one-off action done in recompense for having taken a one-sided resolution.

The major means for genuine conflict resolution, especially in love, are compromising and complementation. Compromise is typically not a one-time state, but rather an ongoing process. In compromise there is the need to accept something that has a certain negative value. There can be various reasons for accepting something of negative value, but the major one in the case of compromise is that something positive is gained in return. In compromise one gives up something of value in order to get something else of greater value. Compromise can be characterized as an attempt to cope with a situation in which one experiences a gap between the desired and the available by giving up some aspects of the desired while keeping others of them (see here).

Complementation is defined as "completing something or making two things into one whole; being complements of each other." ‘Complement' is derived from the Latin word for "fill up" or "complete." When something complements another thing, it does more than complete it; it enhances it. Certain wines complement particular dishes; certain condiments complement specific foods; and certain colors might complement your hair or eyes. A complementary arrangement is one that is compatible to both parties. Complementation is a relational structure by which two independent people enhance each other's strength and improve their common experience. The opposite of ‘to complement' is ‘to clash'. Complementation requires both people to be constructively active. More than any other means of conflict resolution, it requires relational and interactive activities from both partners.

Applying the notions of compromise and complementation to the romantic realm, we can say that when one compromises, one is accepting the negative in order to prevent harmful consequences, during complementation the focus is upon further nurturing the relationship. Accordingly, we might say that compromise is part of a Preventative Approach to love, while complementation is part of a Nurturing Approach to love (see here). In reality we need both approaches, and the quality of the relationship is determined by the weight and the overall balance between them both.

The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following perspective that a married person might express: "Darling, I know that conflicts are part of our romantic relationship, but let us not try to win the battle, but rather to cope with our conflicts in an interactive manner which takes into account our individual needs and values."