Saturday, October 18, 2008

His Needs, Her Needs

In preparing for our wedding last June, we did some premarital counseling with my former pastor Leonard Terry and his wife Carrie. They spoke with us about their experiences in a very matter-of-fact way and were really able to relate to us. They explored various issues like financial plans, past romantic history, and future goals. They wanted to make sure we knew each other well and that we knew what we were getting into. They emphasized balance in everything, repeatedly giving examples about how even the best relationship advice in the world can become harmful if you take it too far.

Beyond that, they provided us with a few different books to work through together. To be honest, some of them weren't expecially good but several of them were amazingly insightful. They captured the dynamics of committed romantic relationships and explained them in a way that was easy to grasp. Even though we were both in our late twenties, it was surprising to discover so much about ourselves and about our relationship as we worked through these books.

As I begin to write about marriage, I wanted to introduce some of these books along with the core concepts. The first one, and the one that we refer to most frequently, is called His Needs, Her Needs by Willard F. Harley Jr. It discusses the idea that both partners each have their own needs - not just selfish desires or preferences, but genuine needs. The author offers his list of the ten most prominent needs for married couples, which includes (in no particular order)...
  1. Affection
  2. Sexual Fulfillment
  3. Conversation
  4. Recreational Companionship
  5. Honesty & Openness
  6. Physical Attractiveness
  7. Financial Support
  8. Domestic Support
  9. Family Commitment
  10. Admiration
Very often, we don't even realize that we have some of these needs so it's helpful to analyze ourselves. We may not realize how fulfilling or ignoring these needs can make us feel either good or bad, and how these things affect our relationship. With this in mind, we can learn how to express ourselves better. On the flip side, we can learn more about our partner and we can see how to draw closer together.

The needs are co-operative. Fulfilling a need for our partner often leads to them reciprocating and fulfilling our own need in some way. It's a positive effect, building and building. For example, sharing in some recreational fun that we both enjoy can easily lead to extended conversations afterwards. As another example, the parallel needs of affection and sexual fulfillment become entwined, displays of love leading to sex and sex leading to more displays of love.

Conversely, this spiral of needs can also be destructive. Hurting our partner may lead them to shut down on us and ignore our needs, which in turn hurts us and makes us less inclined to fill their needs. Sometimes this process is intentional, withholding something in revenge or for spite. Sometimes it's unintentional, like when we feel hurt by dishonesty and we're not in the mood to touch one another. Either negatively or positively, whether we're aware of it or not, we always play this role in the health of our relationship.

These principles apply to married couples and non-married couples alike, which is why I like to refer to "partners" instead of "spouses." Naturally, I'm a big fan of marriage since I love my wife so much but these same dynamics are active in any long-term romantic relationship. This back-and-forth is always happening and we have to realize that we honestly require some things and the other person is the same way. It's the natural give and take (although "Give & Take" is something I will get into more later).

I have a lot of thoughts about this topic and about the various specific needs, and the book has much more to say about it. I may follow up with more thoughts on these things in future posts but you're welcome to track down that book yourself or open more discussions on this blog...

21 comments:

Mike said...

The love song of 2008: "Museum Piece" by Of Montreal.

Mike said...

Wrong song name! "Gallery Piece."

Jamie A. Grant said...

BTW, that's a great song that Mike mentioned. It has an old-school disco funk thing going on and the lyrics are a little nuts but it's a lot of fun...

Lawyer Kid said...

I realize you might be planning on getting into this later, so I might be jumping the gun, but I absolutely cannot stand the suggestion that marriage is "Give and Take".

"Give and Give" would seem more appropriate.

But you might be getting into that further later, so I'll wait with baited breath.

Mike said...

Who's taking what you're giving?

Jamie A. Grant said...

Yes, "Give & Take" can be rephrased "Give & Receive" if the initial impression is more palatable. The author uses "Take" for a specific reason, though, which I'll get into later.

Suffice it to say that no one is supposed to be an unconditionally-loving all-giving martyr/slave in their marriage. Each partner needs to give something to the other person and each person needs to get something from the other person. There should be a balance there, right?

If anyone is interested, an introduction the author's core ideas are available on his website: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3000_intro.html

There's a lot to read there but the books are much more thorough, with better explanations and examples and practical advice. I'll keep going with my own blog but if you just can't wait then go ahead and enjoy...

Lawyer Kid said...

Actually, it's my opinion that we are called to be unconditionally loving and all giving. It is just rhetoric to tack "martyr" onto the end of that (although you could suggest that Jesus was the ultimate martyr, and thus not really all that bad of a term anyways).

Which is another good example. Pretty sure the ultimate example was a pretty good picture of unconditional love and all-givingness.

Lawyer Kid said...

Just to be clear, there obviously "should" be a balance. But regardless, that doesn't remove you from certain things you signed up for when you said some rather important words.

Jamie A. Grant said...

Yes, God loves us unconditionally. Um, except for the conditions. As I recall, I only had to surrender my entire life to become a Christian. Sounds like a pretty big condition to me. ;)

The way that God loves everyone on earth and the way that he loves his children are very different.

Pure giving love, Agape love, is unconditional but that's a one-way street. Phileo or Eros love (brotherly and romantic) are two-way streets and these are conditional. They cannot exist without the other person contributing.

A healthy marriage requires all three kinds of love...

Mike said...

Two kinds of martyrs: the martyr who enjoys it, and the martyr that does everything possible to avoid being a martyr.

"Unconditional love" is, of course, unconditional, so the concept cannot possibly apply to marriage, which is obviously a condition.

I'd go further and say that unconditional love is a complete oxymoron.

Mike said...

Which is to say, martyrdom is either the pinnacle of narcissism, or it is a desperate act of necessity.

Abe said...

"Yes, God loves us unconditionally. Um, except for the conditions. As I recall, I only had to surrender my entire life to become a Christian."

So does God not love those who haven't said the sinner prayer? Does God not love sinners? Is God' love conditional, or unconditional?

Lawyer Kid said...

What Abe said.

And with marriage, I tend to think I would equate it to: "I vow that you are the only person to whom I "Eros", regardless of how you love me back."

I also don't see any reason why I can't "phileo" someone if they don't reciprocate.

As weird as it sounds, I think that answers the question.

Jamie A. Grant said...

Um, are we losing something in translation, folks?

Abe, I agree that God loves everyone, believers and non-believers alike, with unconditional love (agape). Once someone becomes a Christian, we enter into the relational love (phileo) as well. We choose to have a two-way relationship with God.

Phileo is brotherly love and friendship. It is a two-way street. We can be friendly and nice to people but we can't be their friend if they refuse to return the favour. How can you be a friend to someone that refuses to even talk to us? Likewise, how can we have romantic love for someone that won't be with us? Imagining romantic love for someone without them loving us in return is infatuation, it's a crush, it's not love.

And Mike, I like what you said there. By my arguments above, I guess you would suggest that "unconditional love" isn't love unless it's accepted, which is a condition. In that frame of mind, I guess we could change that concept to "unconditional giving" instead...

The fact that we use the word "love" to mean so may things can make it difficult to differentiate these concepts, I think. After all, I love tacos... ;)

Did I address all of the various opinions and viewpoints? My point of emphasis is merely that marriage is a two-way street. The more one-sided it becomes, the less loving it becomes until the love eventually dies out and the marriage fails. Love does not exist in a vacuum, right?

Jamie A. Grant said...

I feel like a stumbled across the old TopicCrunchers website for some reason... ;)

Mike said...

Whoa, hey now. Let's not be christianizing what I said.

When we talk about conditions, we're talking about the factors that have to be in place for something to take place, right?

If something is unconditional, then there are no such factors that need to be in place.

Unconditional love would love rocks and twigs every bit as much as a human, because being a human would count as a condition. This unconditional love would have to be something utterly banal, utterly pointless. You love me unconditionally? So what? You can say the same for a rock.

What else can love be but an unfair, unjust, unbalanced selection of one being out of many? It's one of those few desperate moments of necessity when we say "Here I stand, I can do no other, and every other concern can go to HECK."

David Grant said...

Someone who is a strong advocate for a great marriage said, "If I couldn't stand the person I was married to, I would leave." This would have been after a lot of effort went into making the marriage work.

Unconditional love is a great discussion for a philosophy class, in real life you can't have a relationship with someone else by yourself.

Unconditional love is meant to give another person a chance, it doesn't give them license to abuse, berate, control or damage someone else.

BTW Mike, what do you care if something you said sounds like it has Christian overtones to it?

Mike said...

'Cause the version of Christianity it was being christianized into is contemporary evangelical Christianity. I wholly admit that my comments on love here are heavily influenced by a (kinda strange) reading of the NT.

Lori said...

Clearly your blogging has been greatly missed Jamie, lol!

Battle said...

^^^^^
Wow, I just read through all previous 19 comments and suddenly I'm glad I don't have as many comments on my blog.

Lawyer Kid said...

Looks like everyone is waiting for the next post.

Hurry it up, will ya?