I feel compelled to write this article because of a dating situation that occurs very often but is not explained with the simple dating rules found in most books. I will use a case example as an illustration.
Henry and Yvonne (not their real names) posted online. After some email conversations, they met up for coffee. They hit it off and soon began dating. According to Henry, they were hopelessly in love and after six months they became engaged. Then things started to fall apart and Yvonne seemed to become 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, though sometimes it seemed like he wanted more than she could give.
After a year they separated, but after a month they were talking again. He wanted to feel love like before, and she didn’t want to lose the best thing she had ever had. But she still wasn’t sure.
You could say this problem was because the infatuation faded, denial and guilt pushed her to accept the commitment, and then loneliness brought them back together after the breakup.
However, this assessment is based on a major 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 wore off, her true level dropped to “high”, while his remained “very high”. If her feelings of romantic chemistry had dropped to “medium” or below, then it could be said that she had fallen out of love. But in fact, her chemistry is still “high” (although not as high as Henry’s). This makes her feel ambivalent. She 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 does. So she’s stuck. She doesn’t know if she will proceed 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 she doesn’t know what to do either. Her ambivalence feeds her insecurity, which in turn makes her work harder in the relationship, which in turn makes him feel more confined and eager 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? First there must 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 to control the situation.
The couple who feel greater chemistry (Henry) must patiently allow time for the ambivalent partner (Yvonne) to work out their life goals and decide how (or if) this relationship fits them. This can be very difficult to do. 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 his self-protection). (No one should date others out of spite or revenge or an effort to make the other person jealous.)
An important part of the solution is seeking the advice and support of someone who understands this type of situation. Friends often give simplistic views (“forget her” or “move on”). This is an ideal opportunity for Henry and Yvonne to get assistance to help them focus on personal growth, which usually means gaining new insights into how relationships work. It is also important to acquire the ability to apply this new knowledge! My book “Love Isn’t a Game (But You Have to Know the Odds)” is an excellent source of information on how to gauge chemistry and maturity, and how to deal with the issues that arise from the imbalance of these factors.
Copyright 2006, Randy Hurlburt