I am moved to write this article because of a dating situation that occurs very frequently, but is not explained by the simple rules of dating found in most books. I will use a case example as an illustration.
Henry and Yvonne (not their real names) get online. After some email conversations, they met for coffee. They got along well and soon started dating. According to Henry, they were madly in love and after six months they got engaged. Then things started to fall apart and Yvonne seemed to grow more distant. Henry wanted to make things better, Yvonne wasn’t sure. Yet the thought of breaking up with Henry filled her with dread. Henry had always treated her well, although at times it seemed like he wanted more than she could give.
After a year they broke up, but within a month they spoke again. She wanted to feel love like it had been before, and she didn’t want to lose the best she had ever had. But she still wasn’t sure.
You could say that this problem was due to the fact that the infatuation disappeared, the denial and guilt pushed her to accept the commitment, and then the loneliness brought them back together after the break up.
However, this assessment is based on a significant false premise. It assumes that “in love” and “not-in-love” are black and white concepts, and it assumes that infatuation, if it fades, becomes “not-in-love.”
The truth, unfortunately, lies somewhere in the middle, and it is necessary to deal with this complexity of “shades of gray” if you want to be successful in life and in love.
Henry and Yvonne felt very high romantic chemistry at first, but once the crush was gone, their true level dropped to “high” while his remained “very high.” If his feelings of romantic chemistry had dropped to “medium” or less, then it could be said that he had fallen in love. But, in fact, his chemistry is still “high” (although not as high as Henry’s). This makes her feel ambivalent. Maybe she can find someone where the chemistry is stronger, but maybe she can’t, at least not in someone who treats her as well as Henry. So she is stagnant. She doesn’t know whether to continue with him or not. She doesn’t want to give him false hope, but she doesn’t want to lose him either. She doesn’t know what to do. This drives him crazy and he doesn’t know what to do either. His ambivalence fuels his insecurity, which in turn makes him work harder in the relationship, which in turn makes her feel more confined and wanting to leave. It is a vicious circle.
This, or a variation of it, seems to happen all the time, hence the title of this article “The Prevalence of Ambivalence.”
So what is the solution? There must first be enough emotional maturity to be able to recognize the problem and work on it constructively. In this example, Henry’s emotional maturity was slightly higher than Yvonne’s, and enough to try and control the situation.
The partner who feels the most chemistry (Henry) must patiently give the ambivalent partner (Yvonne) time to work out their life goals and decide how (or if) this relationship fits them. This can be very difficult. Henry needs to work on his own personal growth in order to handle it. Yvonne will probably need to date other people as part of her decision process. Therefore, Henry will also need to date other people, but for different reasons (his emotional health and self-protection). (No one should date other people out of spite or revenge or an effort to make the other person jealous.)
An important part of the solution is seeking advice and support from someone who understands this type of situation. Friends often give simplistic views (“forget it” or “move on”). This is an ideal opportunity for Henry and Yvonne to gain assistance to help them focus on personal growth, which generally means gaining new insights into how relationships work. It is also important to acquire the ability to apply this new knowledge! My book “Love is not a game (but you must know the odds)” is an excellent source of information on how to measure chemistry and maturity, and how to deal with the problems that arise from an imbalance of these factors.
Copyright 2006, Randy Hurlburt