The Great Mate Debate

The Truth Will Set You Free

Posted by: Ed Young

Topic: Is complete honesty necessary in a successful relationship?

You hear a lot these days about being completely honest with someone you love. I am amazed at how easy it has become to rationalize lying. I don’t believe you can have a successful relationship without complete honesty. Almost everyone has heard the words of Jesus, quoted most famously by Martin Luther King: “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” I believe if we are ever going to experience relational freedom we must be honest with ourselves and with each other. Secrets and lies are the blades that can cut and divide a relationship. In my experience, even the smallest of lies can do serious damage. In fact, too often small lies and little hidden agendas set the stage for a lot of doubt and tons of question marks as to the validity of the relationship. When honesty and truth are foundations in a relationship there really is freedom.

The truth can be hard and difficult to swallow at times so I love what St. Paul says about the packaging of honesty. He says, speak the truth in love. Or wrap truth in love. Sometimes we have to say hard stuff to others but we wrap it in love. That seems paradoxical but it works. Honesty in a relationship breeds vulnerability and that is a great thing. True intimacy emerges from vulnerability. When we have secrets and lies and tell half-truths and exaggerate, it can manifest and fester and cause some serious issues in the future. One of the major saboteurs of relationships is dishonesty. The most steadfast and lasting relationships practice honesty and because of this there is a high level of confidence. When I talk about honesty I’m not talking about saying anything and everything that comes to mind. That can hurt! In fact, we often use that tactic passive-aggressively to intentionally hurt someone we love. We say, “Hey! I’m just being honest” to rationalize our outburst of “honesty.”

Rather, our words should be affirming, loving and well chosen for the occasion. When honest words of criticism need to be spoken they should be lovingly spoken at the right time in an appropriate manner. Sharing like this brings balance and confidence with each person involved. I am receptive to my wife when I know that she loves me enough to have my best interest at heart. When she tells me affirming truths on a regular basis I am able to hear the difficult truth when it is necessary. We hear a lot in the media these days about “fair and balanced” reporting. It’s time for relationships to experience “fair and balanced” honesty!

Here are a few questions to ask before sharing something in a relationship:

• By not saying this, are you covering, hiding, or camouflaging the truth? This leads to massive amounts of paranoia, and incarcerates us with guilt, shame, and even greater emotional dysfunction in the relationship.
• Are you sharing every sordid detail, even things that are not necessary for healing or closure? For example, you may share that you have slept around in the past, but you don’t have to share every detail of each encounter.
• Are you sharing this just to feel better with no regard for how this may impact the other person? Sometimes sharing the truth is just a selfish attempt to feel better and/or make the other person feel bad.
• Have you built a level of trust before sharing your deepest secrets and true feelings? Jumping the gun may connect you with someone too quickly and lock you into a relationship that does not have any long-term foundation. One month is not enough time to truly know a person and trust them with the deepest parts of your heart. Honesty builds trust – dishonesty demolishes it. Trust is the foundation of any relationship.
• Are you speaking the truth in love, or am I sharing out of pride, malice, vindictiveness, or anger?

When a couple can share all their junk of the past and still receive acceptance and forgiveness, this leads to greater intimacy and trust for a lasting and committed relationship.

What Is a Relationship Anyway?

Posted by: Dan Savage

Topic: Is complete honesty necessary in a successful relationship?

And by "relationship" I mean, "a romantic, long-term, perhaps exclusive sexual and emotional attachment." But for the purposes of this post, I suppose it could be any relationship -- one with, say, your sibling, your boss, your parents, your butcher. And here's hoping those relationships don't involve sexual attachments. (Unless, of course, you're dating your butcher. Or boss.)

Honesty gets all the good press--who could be against honesty?--but, as some of my fellow bloggers have already pointed out (thrilled not to be out here on this limb all alone), honesty isn't always the best policy. From simple things such as the cliche correct response to a cliche loaded question--"No, you don't look fat in that dress..."--to more complicated things like, oh, a one-time pratfall off the monogamy wagon, sometimes the right, loving response to a direct question is the least honest one.

If I was better at keeping clippings I would be able to cite the study... a study I recall reading sometime in the late 1990s, during the height of the Bill & Monica meltdown... but researchers, I distinctly recall, found that people that were mildly deluded about their relationships were happier than people that weren't. Self-deception, aided and abetted by a little mate-deception, made for happier, healthier relationships. I interpreted the findings like this: A marriage is not a deposition. There are no perjury traps; there are, however, honesty traps.

If a relationship--a long-term one, at any rate--is anything at all, it's a myth two people create together. And like all myths, relationships don't hold up to laser-like scrutiny. Sometimes we have to protect our partners from the awful truth about ourselves, i.e. that we're not the perfect person/ideal mate that we lead them to believe we are. And that can take some editing, a.k.a. dishonesty. But dishonesty is like... baking soda, I guess. A touch of it and you get a cake. Too much and you get a mess.

Complete Honesty: Overrated

Posted by: Wendy Shalit

Topic: Is complete honesty necessary in a successful relationship?

I think a lot of what passes for honesty these days is just plain rudeness.   No, people don't actually need to know that they've put on weight, or that you've never liked that lamb dish they've served for years! (Unless, of course, you're the one who's been eating it for years, and you really can't take it anymore.)

In today's relationships, there is often a temptation to "overshare" the small things under the guise of "honesty," while at the same time concealing the really big things.  I'm not pointing fingers here--I've done it myself.  Yet I've also found that intimacy tends to thrive more when we're honest about the big things and overlook the small annoyances.  It's more about letting people into our hearts and making ourselves vulnerable; less about just criticizing.

Since we're being honest, though, let's admit that there is a big difference between a married relationship and a dating one.

I find that nowadays, people have a tendency to rush into a physical relationship and not be honest with themselves about what the relationship is based on.   Is there genuine compatibility of values? Who cares, will often be the reply--I'm really attracted.  Unfortunately, this often doesn't last. 

In contrast, the same people will believe that marriage is the time for brutal honesty.  Now that you have the ring, goes the thinking, you can really "let it all hang out."

To make love last, I think we need to reverse this conventional wisdom.  Be critical, honest, and probing when you're dating, and certainly don't rush into a physical relationship.  Be as clear as possible on who the other person is, and what your relationship is based on.

Then, if you decide to marry, that's the time to put on those rose-colored glasses!

Courtship is about winning.

Posted by: Dr. Helen Fisher

Topic: Is complete honesty necessary in a successful relationship?

Courtship is not about honesty; it's about winning, winning life's greatest prize, a long-term mating and social partner. So humanity has a tendency to size up the perquisites and deficits of honesty and stretch the facts when we think we might profit from deception. We are not alone. All sorts of creatures try to deceive. Gorillas stand up on their hind legs to look tall, then cup their hands and pound their chests, making a pock-pock noise that sounds authoritative and probably virile. Many animals raise their hair to look big, strut to appear confident and imposing, or dance to show their strength and energy. People apparently lie most about their age, weight, height and financial status. For good Darwinian reasons. These basic signals say a lot about a person's health and ability to conceive and raise a child. And although many people do not want to bear an infant, we still respond, almost viscerally, to a potential partner's visual and financial signals. But we are also built to contain our lies--because if we are "discovered," we are likely to lose precious mating opportunities. Moreover, some people almost never lie. But like the peacock that puffs out its tail to woo a peahen, people lie to impress.

Should we tell the truth in a long-term relationship? That depends. There are many things I choose not to tell a partner, the same things I don't tell my girlfriends, like "you really are getting too fat."I don't believe these little cruelties strengthen a partnership. But I am a standard American in my belief that honesty on important issues is essential. Psychiatrist Frank Pittman once said of adultery, "It's not who you lie with; it's who you lie to." I agree. I don't feel you can achieve intimacy with someone when big lies lurk between you. And, to me, intimacy is essential to love.

Honestly?

Posted by: Greg and Amiira Behrendt

Topic: Is complete honesty necessary in a successful relationship?

You may be shocked to hear this but we believe honesty is important in a relationship. There, we said it and we are not taking it back no matter how controversial you think we are. Okay all kidding aside, honesty, sex, communication, respect, more sex, love and a side order of sex are the cornerstones of any great relationship but let’s clarify what kind of honesty is necessary. Because if we’re being honest there’s the good kind of honesty that comes from a place of respect and love and then there’s the other kind – the hurtful and destructive kind. Example: “Your brother is much better in bed than you are.” Seems unnecessarily hurtful on a few levels, doesn’t it? But “I’m unhappy with our sex life.” is a discussion worth having. It’s really up to you to decide what effect your honesty will have on your person and why you are being “honest” with them in the first place. Just because you have information doesn’t mean that for the sake of honesty that your significant other needs it too. “I’m never going to want to have children.” Yes. That you tell. “Honest to God, being around your mother makes me wish I had never married you.” No. That’s just between you and God. Look, we’ve discussed it amongst ourselves as we agree that yes you need to be honest to have a successful relationship, but not completely honest and in fact we ourselves have agreed that we don’t always want to know the truth and thus far it’s worked swimmingly for us.

Greg: “I don’t want to know that I’ve put on a few pounds but I do want to know if you’re sleeping with the gardener.”

Amiira: “I’m not sleeping with the gardener but if I wanted to sleep with Eliseo (the gardener) I would definitely be honest about it.”

Greg: “Actually, I’m not sure I want to know that.”

Amiira: “Oh, honestly...”

Greg: “I think he’s put on a few pounds, actually.”

Amiira: “You should totally tell him that. He’d really appreciate it.”

Greg: “Why don’t you tell him? You’re the one sleeping with him.” Note: Just for the record, Amiira is not sleeping with the gardener… yet.

Hey! Call Me Old-fashioned but I Still Believe in Marriage

Posted by: Ed Young

Topic: Marriage

So many people are jumping into what are commonly called starter marriages and then moving on to other marriages.  It's the vogue thing to do these days. But divorce has this ripple effect.  It’s not just between the two parties.  It’s between many, many others.  Society gives so many open doors to divorce, yet I still maintain that the marriage relationship is the most important earthly relationship that we have.  The last time I checked there are over 50 million marriages in the US and 94% will marry at least once.  75% of those who are divorced remarry within the first two years of their divorce.  The stats are pretty sobering. 

Even though marriages are busting up in record numbers, even though record numbers of people are walking through the door of divorce, millions pursue it every year.  And I still believe in it. Marriage is the foundation for the family.   Great marriages can change communities, cities, states, and really the world.  And a great marriage begins with creativity.

I’ve done a lot of study on creativity.  My wife and I have written a book called The Creative Marriage. We’re to be creative because we’re made in the image of our creative Creator. Creativity should transcend every area of our lives especially it should hold true in marriage.  Think about it, in marriage you have two creative people and when they join together as one flesh, you should have creativity on the next level.

When I talk about creativity in marriage, I’m really talking about the “W” word. Yes, work. Some people work harder at having an affair than they do in trying to make their own marriage work. Ouch! But marital work has phenomenal rewards.

We need to dive in to marital work like we dive into a business deal or dive into the lives of our kids or dive into any project. 

In my profession, many people think, “Ed, it’s easy for you to talk about marriage.  You’ve been married for almost 25 years and you have a great marriage.  You’ve written books about it.  You’re a pastor.  Blah, blah, blah.”

Yeah, I do have a great marriage, but Lisa and I have gone through conflict and we’ve gone through hard times because every marriage has the same dilemmas.  Every marriage has the same situations or the same hurdles.  Successful ones know how to negotiate the rough times and come out stronger.  Marriage has taken a lot of work on my part and Lisa’s part but we’ll both tell you it’s worth it.  Couples today hit a relational sticking point.  They don’t want to deal with the junk so they say, “Let’s just open the door to divorce.”

They take the same junk, the same baggage into the next marriage.  They walk through the next door of divorce, the next door of divorce.  Deal with it now.  Just commit to each other and to God, “This deal is for keeps and I’m going to keep creativity and innovation in my marriage.”  In short, maintain the MWE, the Marital Work Ethic. And, by the way, that commitment begins even before walking down the marital runner.

Okay, I’ll get off my soap box now…you can go back to watching The Starter Wife or Desperate Housewives.

The Things That You’re Liable to Read in the Bible

Posted by: Dan Savage

Topic: Response to Ed Young on Gay Marriage

First, I want to credit Ed Young for not trotting out every anti-gay verse in the Christian bible to justify his anti-gay marriage position. Instead he trots out pro-straight verses--a nice change of pace, especially for those of us that are sick of having Leviticus and Romans tossed in our faces.

Yes, God created—or we evolved—male and female, sexual beings. Indeed, heterosexual desire is natural and without the determined efforts of straight people all over the world—mad props, as the kids were recently saying—our species would have died out long, long ago. Thanks to heterosexual sex we're six billion and going strong--so strong that we may destroy the planet, but still. That's some fruitful multiplying!

But homosexual desire, and homosexual orientation, is every bit as natural as heterosexual desire and orientation. All evidence points to a genetic or biological “cause,” and evolutionary biologists theorize that there is a genetic/survival benefit to homosexuality or it would have died out long ago. Not just homosexual activity but homosexual orientation has been observed in hundreds of other species of animals. If you believe in a divine creator, He--or She or Them or It--created us too. And we can love and form attachments and enter into long-term relationships. We also pay taxes and are citizens that deserve civil equality--including access to the rights and obligations of civil marriage.

So why isn’t any of that in the bible? Well... no disrespect intended here... but I have to say that it might be because the bible was authored thousands of years ago by thoroughly fallible human beings, not an omniscient creator. The authors of the bible didn't get gravity or the fact that the earth rotated around the sun. They knew even less about human sexuality. The bible, as Mark Twain wrote, “has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.” If we sincerely believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, then in addition to banning gay marriage we would be still be stoning adulterers, not voting for them.

That doesn't prevent folks who believe the Bible to be the word of God from, well, acting like it. To quote the bumper sticker, "Don't Believe in Gay Marriage? Don't Have One!" Nothing about extending the rights and obligations of civil marriage to same-sex couples--New Hampshire is the latest state to enact Civil Unions--compels religious conservatives to enter into same-sex relationships, attend or sanction same-sex marriage ceremonies, or act as flowers girls at our weddings. (Although if God exists and He's gay--a slim chance, but what the hell--Fred Phelps, Donald Wildman, and James Dobson are going to spend all eternity acting as a flower girls at gay weddings.) Christian conservatives have the right to live by their lights, and act on their own beliefs. But they should not have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

Pointing to the Bible to justify discrimination against same-sex couples does not win the argument. We're not talking religion here, we're talking about the civil institution of marriage. And if we were talking religion, there are many Christian churches that will marry same-sex couples. What of their religious freedom? If one church opposes same-sex marriage for religious reason and another supports it for religious reasons... don't they cancel each other out? Doesn't that prove that we need to move this debate away from religion?

And finally... (sorry about the looooong post)... if we're going to invoke the bible to justify discrimination against same-sex couples by quoting passages that approve of heterosexual sex and love (and, hey, I approve too--thanks mom and dad!), what of bible passages that approve stuff we all condemn? Sam Harris writes in his short book Letter to a Christian Nation...

In assessing the moral wisdom of the Bible, it is useful to consider moral questions that have been solved to everyone's satisfaction. Consider the question of slavery. The entire civilized world now agrees that slavery is an abomination. What moral instruction do we get from the God of Abraham on this subject? Consult the Bible, and you will discover that the creator of the universe clearly expects us to keep slaves...

Harris goes on to cite Leviticus 25: 44-46, which lets us know how God wants us to treat our slaves; Exodus 21: 7-11, which instructs fathers on the dos and don'ts of selling their daughters into slavery; Ephesians 6:5, which orders slaves to be obedient to their masters; Timothy 6: 1-4, which does the same. Back to Harris:

Nothing in Christian theology remedies the appalling deficiencies of the Bible on what is perhaps the greatest--and the easiest--moral question our society has ever had to face.

If the authors of the Bible got something as simple as slavery wrong, as Harris points out, it's entirely possible that it got something as complex as human sexuality wrong too.

Would we have found each other on the internet?

Posted by: Greg and Amiira Behrendt

Topic: Dating Now and Then

Hi again, it's us. We were just talking about how back in the day when we were daters there wasn't the information superhighway, thus there was no Chemistry.com, Match.com or Onlinedatingsiteofyourchoice.com. We had to find eachother the classic way, in person and do our getting to know you by way of Q & A. There wasn't a profile to breeze through to see if we were aligned on important matters like favorite bands, Mexican food and political leanings. So we wonder if there had been online dating when we were single, would we have found eachother? It's hard to say. Certainly we would have matched up on some things - we both like movies, television and music. We're probably the only two people online that like those things so that's an easy one - the lines already are being connected by the search engine with that alone. What about the big ones - kids, spirituality, values, sex and guacamole. Check, check, check, check and double check. Now we're cooking. But wait, we'd fall short on the physical match up because neither of us were eachother's "type" if you will and we're like night and day with many of our likes and dislikes because he likes a rainy day and she's a sunshine girl, etc... Hmmm. We're not looking so good at this point. Here's where we'd definitely make a big comeback - the essay questions. Certainly we'd both reference the things that are of paramount importance to drawing a like minded mate, for us that would be an appreciation for the Daily Show, the Clash, Paul Newman movies and The Office (both the BBC's and NBC's). We're looking good again... it's on. Surely the dating site is clever enough to match us on that stuff alone and then when we read each other's profiles we'd be winking up a storm after the true and soulful connection that London Calling and Cool Hand Luke establishs. Hot damn we're back!Except for one little snafu...Amiira barely checks her emails or voicemails so how often is she going to check her online dating account? Sadly the answer is next to never because she stinks. So would we get matched up? We think we would. Would Amiira ever check her account to see if anyone interesting winked or emailed her? Well if she did then we would be winking, emailing, talking and the such we'd be off to the races as they say. If she didn't well, we hope we still would have met at the hair salon like we did and figure out that, "Hey, you're the one that loves the Clash and guacamole!"

Community, God and Chaos

Posted by: Dr. Helen Fisher

Topic: What roles do religion and spirituality play in relationships today?

Hi All, thanks of the good read. Just a few comments here. I like Wendy’s comment that we need to put our energies into making our own marriages work. I think more and more people are actually doing that. Moreover, this is a fairly modern trend. Greek, Roman, Chinese and early Christian philosophers and theologians regarded one’s love of kin, God and civil duty as far more important than love for a spouse. In fact, historians maintain that strong marital commitments were not regarded as the foundation stone of society until the 20th century. We’re doing something right!

This new emphasis on happiness and companionship in marriage probably stems from many current trends. But one of them, I suspect, is our lack of local community. We all still maintain rich networks of colleagues, friends and family. But these people don’t live next door; nor do they share all of our personal values and goals, as they did for millions of years on the grasslands of ancient Africa. I have often thought humanity would reinvent new ways to produce local community-- and perhaps the church life that Ed Young and others are creating is a response to exactly this need for local community.

I was also struck by Dan Savage’s reminder that we all have biases. Sometimes I lie in bed at night and wonder what beliefs I am clinging to that I will think are ridiculous in five years. I only know of one at the moment: I firmly believe that women are just as sexual and just as adulterous as men. But this is for a different blog.

Regarding Ed Young’s comment that “spiritual commitment is absolutely essential” to a relationship, I guess we would have to define “spiritual.” But to add some science here: Psychologists believe a successful relationship needs three components: passion; intimacy and commitment. But….does a successful partnership need a “spiritual” commitment, particularly to a Christian god?

Well, as an anthropologist I can only say that a huge number of human beings worldwide--for many millennia--made highly successful marriages without a Christian god. Moreover, even a cursory look at global history indicates that the concept of ‘god’ has caused tremendous damage—perhaps not in the family but certainly in the world.

Marriage, No Exit

Posted by: Wendy Shalit

Conversation with: Dan Savage

I have been enjoying reading everyone's perspective here, and I found Dan's point about heterosexuals threatened by gay marriage to be thought-provoking (and funny).  Usually when I hear people talk about gay marriage "threatening the institution of marriage," they reference the "slippery slope" argument (that next we might get married to multiple spouses or to animals).  So I never saw it as an issue of being personally threatened by gay marriage, but I can certainly see how this holds true in some cases.

In any event, I would imagine that the bestiality argument is extremely offensive to gay people.  As far as I am concerned, however, it's already a moot point.  Several years back, I read a popular advice columnist tell her readers to marry their dogs if they couldn't find a man. (It was sort of a joke, but also sort of not-a-joke.) And since this column ran years before gay marriage took off, it would seem that it's unfair to blame the latter for any future Fido nuptials.

That said, I would like to continue the thread on how to strengthen marriage, independent of the discussion on homosexuality.  Specifically I am interested in what Dan and others think of the concept of "covenant marriage." Have you heard of this?

The idea behind it is that the biggest threat to marriage today is our acceptance of no-fault divorce and the attitude of, "Sure, we've been together 20 years and you've raised all our children, but what the heck? My secretary is looking mighty fine."  This is a vast oversimplification, of course, but I do know three couples in the past year alone who have gotten divorced after 25 years, and whether the proximate cause is a mid-life crisis, an affair, or just general malaise, there's no glossing over the fact that each story is its own tragedy.  We all know that there is usually one spouse who does not want to end the marriage, a sad fact that isn't often discussed.  It's seen as uncouth, almost, to even mention it. (In contrast, the problems suffered by children of divorce have gotten more ink of late, and perhaps deservedly so.)

Covenant marriage advocates point out that in our culture of no-fault divorce, people who truly want to be committed for life do not have that option.  So they propose that individuals embarking on marriage should be able to choose a marriage that would really bind them, legally, as marriages once did before the advent of no-fault divorce laws.

Critics suggest that women who are abused would not be able to get out of bad marriages.  In fact, abuse is one of the exceptions, and couples can still file for divorce in states which don't recognize the covenant marriages. (Covenant marriages are currently a legal option only in Arkansas, Arizona, and Louisiana.)

Almost as interesting as covenant marriage is the reaction against it.  I think what many don't go for is the idea of marriage having different "grades."  Think about it.  If you live in a state that features convenant marriage, then when you propose to your sweetie, you've got some 'splaining to do if you don't go all the way: "No, honey, of course I want to be together forever!  But I'm concerned about you, darling, in case you get sick of me. . . "

No-fault divorce is indeed a problem, but is covenant marriage the solution?