OMG Digital Magazine | 321 | Thursday 9 August 2018 • PAGE 11
Relationship
OPPOSITES DON ’ T REALLY ATTRACT
Why are we drawn to people who are similar to us ?
Contrary to popular opinion , we “ do not ” marry our opposites . We might consciously choose someone taller , more assertive or successful , or even someone who seems incongruent with our profession , for example . But this choice is usually a conscious one , lacking depth . If we take the time to examine our relationships on a deeper level , that sameness will appear . I believe it was Woody Allen ( Annie Hall ) who once said : “ Don ’ t knock masturbation , it ’ s sex with someone I love .” Well , marriage is like falling in love with someone you already love : Yourself !
Ironically , partners incessantly blame one another for their relationship problems — as if they ’ re so different from one another — or drastically mismatched : “ I ’ m a Type A and he ’ s so unmotivated .” “ I ’ m thrifty and he ’ s a free spender .” “ I ’ m practical and he ’ s a dreamer .” In my 35 years of specializing in couples and sex therapy , I ’ ve never seen an mismatched couple . I ’ ve treated destructive relationships , but none were mismatched .
The harsh reality is that when it comes to choosing a mate there is no free will . We are magnetically drawn to someone just like us — in the ways that really count — the ways that eventually can cause us the most difficulty . As I ’ ve illustrated in my book Magnetic Partners ( Free Press , 2010 ), we choose people with the same internalized conflict that we possess , and collude with them to maintain it no matter what the cost .
My definition of conflict is different than what you might expect . I see conflict as an internal duality or ambivalence which makes it very difficult to choose one side of the conflict over the other , or to somehow integrate the two in a compromise . For example , you may wish to be successful , but feel uncomfortable in the spotlight , or in a leadership position . You may even have a moral issue with overachieving . I refer to this as a success versus sabotage ( big vs . small ) conflict . You may want to commit to a relationship but fear losing your freedom . I refer to this as a commitment versus freedom conflict .
Conflict is everywhere , but that ’ s not necessarily a bad thing . The Greeks , Nietzsche , and Freud all saw the value in it . Wonderful things often come from this sort of tension such as great art , music , and novels . But a misunderstanding of it , or denial that it exists can result in great heartache . Never is this so evident as it is in our most intimate relationships . Here are two examples of two very different couples with very different problems . Even their families and friends saw them as totally mismatched . As a consequence , they have been encouraged to divorce in an effort to find better fits . At closer look , however , I found them to be very much alike … and it was their likeness that seemed to be tearing them apart .
CASE # 1 Peter and Kristen looked very different . Kristen was a stylish attorney from a large firm and Peter was a union electrician dressed in work clothes and boots . Kristen was very articulate and polished . Peter proudly asserted that he was a “ man of the streets .” He preferred to drive a large truck with a gun rack . Even the couple saw themselves as ill matched on several levels . Primarily , they fought about money : Kristen resented that she made so much more than Peter and that he spent more than she did . She also valued saving for retirement and Peter preferred to “ live for today .” Peter felt abandoned by Kristen because of her long work hours . She wanted to make law partner and Peter didn ’ t see the need to burden their lifestyle . “ I have a fear of being poor , but how much money do people really need ? I doubt we ’ ll ever starve . Besides , I want to have fun .”
Peter and Kristen seemed so different didn ’ t they ? Playful and somewhat reckless Peter paired up with serious , responsible Kristen . Now let ’ s take a closer look : Both Peter and Kristen came from very humble origins and worked their way out of poverty . Kristen never forgot those days of scarcity and the constant anxiety on her parents ’ faces . “ I want to make as much money as I can , when I can , so I never have to worry about being poor like my parents . It was a terrible and humiliating experience for my entire family .” Peter claimed that he was embarrassed by his family ’ s economic woes . “ I couldn ’ t really keep up with my friends . Sometimes I couldn ’ t even afford to go to the movies with them .” Given their histories , Kristen ’ s behavior made perfect sense ; it fit with her role as the neurotic savior . That is , until Peter dropped a bomb in therapy : “ Kristen invests a lot . She recently lost over $ 100,000 in a matter of hours ,” he exclaimed . “ Yeah , I spend more money on goods and services , and I ’ m not a saver . But Kristen has squandered far more money than I ever have . If she was so worried about money , why all the risky investments ? Indeed !
Both partners were very similar in that they exhibited a risk versus security conflict . While they worked hard and made money , Kristen made risky investments and married someone with a relatively small income . If she were so concerned about money , why not marry a wealthier man or invest more conservatively ? And if Peter feared becoming poor , why didn ’ t he save anything ? He married well , but often taxed the couple ’ s liquid assets . In reality , Peter and Kristen were quite alike in their ambivalence regarding security . But what brought them together was tearing them apart . It wasn ’ t until they realized that they both shared the same disease , that they were able to stop the blame game and work towards a better balanced conflict . Let ’ s take a look at another case . CASE # 2
Todd had a fascination with the concept of open marriage . His specific fantasy or paraphilia if-you-will , was to visualize his partner having sex with other men . Several years ago he introduced this concept to his wife Susan who was initially reluctant to participate in the dynamic . She called Todd a “ pervert ” and saw having sex with other men as “ gross .” Nevertheless , Todd eventually persuaded Susan to give it a try — and to her amazement — she liked it . Specifically , Susan was to sleep with other men and following each encounter return home and describe in detail her experiences to Todd . This in turn served to arose him .
After two years of open marriage the partners mutually agreed to return to a monogamous lifestyle and to focus on having children . But approximately 10 years later , Susan suddenly began to bring the dynamic back into play without consulting Todd . And this time she refused to describe her encounters . Todd was angry and confused . He wondered whether this was payback for the past but Susan insisted it wasn ’ t , and I believed her . “ I don ’ t blame Todd for the past . I actually enjoyed myself .” So why did Susan re-open the marriage ? Unbeknownst to Susan , she was simply playing the role she had always occupied in her marriage : she had always been the “ dominant ” spouse . She ruled the house and did whatever she wanted despite Todd ’ s mild protests . She frequently overspent and put the couple in debt ; she went out whenever she wanted to and came home at all hours of the night . And she was dismissive of Todd . In essence , Todd was her submissive .
When Todd tried to stop Susan from stepping out this time she refused and he felt helpless . She also demanded that he watch the children and do the household chores while she was out with other men . Todd saw no alternative but to obey . This begs the question : Were Todd and Susan so different ? No ! While they played different roles in the dom / sub dynamic they were both very much attracted to it . They both had a power versus passivityconflict that eventually became unbalanced when Jennifer took it to new heights .
SUMMARY Some of the more popular relationship theories have perpetuated the notion that men and women have problems because they are vastly different . I ’ m not suggesting that each partner , or men and women for that matter are exactly the same in every way . But I don ’ t think men and women are from different planets . And it doesn ’ t help me in working with couples to consider whether one has a larger cingulate gyrus than the other . Focusing on the differences in a couple not only breeds divisiveness and disillusionment , it is also short-sighted and lacking an appropriate depth of understanding . Truth is , when it comes to choosing a mate , we pick with great accuracy . If we can truly understand that we are so much more alike than meets the eye , we may then be able to empathize with one another and join together to ward off whatever problems we may encounter . Are there some differences ? Sure , but many of them are cultural and societal driven . Ryan and Jethá ’ s book Sex at Dawn ( Harper Perennial , 2011 ), challenges the notions that we ’ re monogamous by nature and that women aren ’ t sexually-driven animals like men . Male oppression has helped to perpetuate this myth .
Nevertheless , the realization that we are far more alike than believed is a difficult one to arrive at . Most people don ’ t like to see themselves . They don ’ t want to face their flaws and the contributions they make to their own problems . To these individuals it ’ s much easier — in the short run — to blame their partners rather than to face up to the fact that Walter Kelly was right : “ We have met the enemy , and he is us .”