Tags: Psychology of Love, Love, Intimacy, Intimate Trust, Development of love relationships, Failures In Love relationships, Infatuation, Romantic and erotic passion, Active living love, Overcoming child abuse

Tags: Psychology of Love, Love, Emotional Development, Emotional relationships, Active living love, Development of love relationships, Sex, Intimacy

Originally I had intended to include here, a discussion of "why do love anyway?" and I believe that there are some good reasons why love might add to and benefit our lives, although I do appreciate that there is an ever-growing mass of statistical data about the prevailing unhappiness within love relationships and marriage.

My motivation for going on this journey was about discovering how to do a better sort of love (mainly for my own benefit). I believe that I have been partly successful in identifying some of the characteristics that may be found in loving, healthy, enduring and satisfying relationships and some of the pitfalls as well. Eventually I want to go on to think (and experience) more of what I have described as Companionate Consummate Giving Love as this type of love I find more attractive than any other. For me, it combines what I believe to be the most complete and most satisfying types of love (See making love relationships – Part 1).

I had also wanted to look at love as attachment and to the feelings of some that are expressed as deep-felt compelling needs within love relationships.

But my blogs seem to be getting longer and longer, and more and more difficult to read and take in. My last blog on making love relationships ran to almost three and a half thousand words. For me it was difficult even to proof read and I ended up rewriting it too. So I'm going to omit the discussions mentioned above and acknowledge that there are many other different types of love.

There is now a whole body of published work, by psychologists who have specialised in their (normally academic) careers, on types of love and love relationships. There are several common groupings of love types and styles. I suspect that in truth there is infinite variation, but there seem also to be a number that are recurrent and common-place, that constitute most of the prototypical types of love or love styles in western society. I have already stated my own love preference, but for the sake of completeness, I have summarised some of the more common variant love types and styles described by psychologists here. These, of course, are in addition to and distinct from “companionate consummate giving love” about which I wrote in "Making love relationships – part 1".


Storge

The constructed type of storgic love is characterised by rapport, self-revelation, interdependency, and mutual need fulfilment.

Storgic lovers are essentially good friends who have grown in intimacy through close association, with an unquestioned assumption that their relationship will be permanent and that they will find a way to deal with their problems that causes them minimum pain. A storgic lover does not fantasise finding some other, perhaps unknown but ideal, lover in the future and abandoning the storgic partner. It never occurs to extreme storgic types that a romantic 'knight on a white horse" or "femme fatale" will appear at some future time to solve their problems. It is more likely that even if this should occur to the storgic lover, he/she would need the storgic partner around to discuss the romantic lover, to give advice, and to share the joys of discovery.

The storgic lover is not a person bored by routine home activity, but is more likely to find it comfortable and relaxing. Storgic lovers are not constantly on the search for new love experiences; rather they enjoy the security of being able to predict each other's responses to their behaviours.

If storgic lovers should break up, they would probably remain close and caring friends, perhaps continue corresponding with one another and actively caring about one another.

Physical intimacy, coitus, and the appreciation of their partners as sexual persons usually come relatively late in a storgic relationship, are accepted comfortably and joyously when they do appear on the scene, and are thus satisfying. Pure storgic types are extremely unlikely to "keep an eye out" for new or more romantic partners.

Temporary separations are not great problems to storgic lovers. Their mutual trust is such that separations are viewed as necessary inconveniences, needed diversions or opportunities for personal growth that will either improve or at least not damage their relationship.

The storgic lover does not "fall in love" in the way that other types of lovers do. The storgic type is more likely to recognise that he/she has been in love for some time without realising it earlier. As a result, anniversaries, birthdays, Valentine's day and the like occasions are not important to them and may even be forgotten or overshadowed by other matters.

In many ways storgic lovers resemble siblings in their understanding of the love relationship. If they fight and argue, it is not an indication that they do no love each other. They are likely to feel that when their love has matured it will be permanent and that they cannot replace their relationship with each other any more than they can replace those that they have with siblings or with parents.

Agape

An agapic lover is forgiving. This kind of love typically assumes that when the loved one causes pain to himself or herself or to someone else, that he or she is acting in ignorance, innocent error, or is the victim of forces not originating in the love -object's personality.

A male agapic lover might, for example, help his female love object arrange an abortion if she became pregnant by someone else during their love affair. Or he might easily love and accept a child conceived by some other man with deep concern for the anguish caused to his loved one and with tender affection for the child. An agapic lover would be more likely to help his or her love object to get medical attention for a venereal disease contracted from someone else during their love affair than to be angry or punitive towards the love object for having a sexual relationship with another.

Agapic persons never "fall in love." Their love for others is always available and they are simply given the opportunity by some of their love objects to show their love to a greater extent than they are by others. An agapic lover cares enough about his/her love object's happiness to understand and give up the loved one if that would seem to give him or her a greater chance for happiness elsewhere.

An agapic lover is patient with the behaviours of his or her love object to an extent that seems to border on masochism. The ideal agapic lover would wait indefinitely for a love object to be released from prison or from a mental hospital, would tolerate the behaviours of an alcoholic or drug-addicted spouse, and would be willing to live with a partner who was engaging in illegal or immoral activities, even though he/she personally disapproved of such behaviours. The agapic lover is always supportive of his/her partner.

Agapic love may be most stable when both partners are agapic. The problems that may arise might involve the obvious drawbacks of self-sacrifice and self-denial. It has the benefits of altruism and giving. A major issue for agapic lovers may also arise if the giving and receiving goes strongly out of balance that seems to be a strong possibility.

Mania

This type of love is obsessed, uncontrolled, dependent and intense in every respect.

The constructed ideal of this type of lover is obsessed with his or her love object. A manic lover may be unable to sleep, eat, or even think logically around the loved one. The manic lover has peaks of excitement, but also depths of depression, with very few periods without a high or low.

This type of lover is jealous to an extent that might be described as irrational. A manic lover cannot tolerate loss of contact with a love object, even for short periods of time, and is distressed by a lack of the lover's presence or anticipated interaction. A manic lover is typically crushed by real or fancied rejection, possibly to the point of suicidal ideation.

The manic lover often try to manipulate the behaviours or feelings of the loved one, but because he or she seems to be bereft of logic, often succeeds only in looking foolish in his or her own eyes. For example, a manic lover may tell their loved one that they should spend a few days apart to think objectively about their relationship, and then go into a state of panic because the partner cannot be located during that period. Manic lovers tend not to tolerate separation well. During periods of separation, the manic lover may experience high levels of anxiety that they may project back onto their loved one holding them responsible or to blame for the anxious discomfort they are feeling. Frequently this will push the relationship into crisis that in the manic lover's view will have been caused by the behaviour of the other rather than by their own anxiety.

The manic lover has a tendency to review his or her abortive love affairs and speculate about what when wrong that terminated them. They will commonly extend this practice to reviewing the past love affairs of their partners in the same way.

Manic lovers frequently have sexual problems as well as problems in handling other forms of intimate interaction. Because of their high level or anxiety, manic lovers might be expected to have problems related to anxiety, such as vaginismus, difficulties in attaining orgasm or premature ejaculation.

Mania is probably associated with low self-esteem and a poor self-concept. Because of this, manic persons are typically not attractive to persons who have good self-concepts and high self-esteem. They become burdensome to more self-sufficient others. If they are rejected by them, their anxieties intensify, making them even less attractive.

It is possible to confuse a manic lover with an erotic lover in the early stages of a relationship since the manic lover will be intensely sexual and romantic. What distinguishes the manic lover is one's experience of them; relationships are like a roller-coaster. They soar up then crash down again frequently within very short time cycles.

Mania is intense, frequently alternating between ecstasy and agony or joy and tragedy. Manic love, when strongly felt, invariably does not end well and is not likely to support the development or maintenance of any long-term stable relationship.

Pragma

The ideal constructed type identified as pragma is that of a person who is unable to invest love in "unworthy" love objects.

With this style, love is a shopping list of attributes. Pragma lovers are often more concerned with structural issues such as wealth, home and lifestyles rather than giving full consideration to their partner as a loving, feeling person.

The pragmatic lover is keenly aware of the comparison level for alternatives that he or she has. Pragmatic lovers are inclined to look realistically a their own assets, decide on their "market value" and set off to get the best possible "deal" in their partners. Once the "deal" is made, the pragmatic lover remains loyal and faithful and defines his or her status as "in love" because the loved one is a "good bargain." Should the assets of either partner change, the pragmatic lover may feel her or his contract has been violated, and may begin to search for another partner.

A pragmatic lover typically assists the loved one to fulfil his or her potentials; for example, such a lover might make sure the love object finishes school, asks for deserved promotions, gets the attention or that he or she "deserves" from physicians, stockbrokers, or employers.

Typically, a pragmatic lover maximises his or her own assets before "putting them on the market." A male pragma may decide not to become involved with any females until he has £500,000 in the bank, or has gone through psychoanalysis, or has a secure job, or has assured himself by reading enough or consulting experts to be sure he is sexually skilful, or the like. A sterile or impotent pragmatic lover may deliberately seek out a widow or widower with children if he or she wants a family.

Once a prospect is in sight, the prototypical pragmatic lover might check out future in-laws and friends systematically, find out if the couple's rhesus blood factors are compatible, and obtain assurance that there is a minimal probability of hereditary defects showing up in their mutual children and so forth.

Pragmatic persons break up or divorce or stay married for practical reasons. Divorce may actually be planned for some future date. For example, pragmatic partners may decide to finish school, to get a different job at another location, to put their youngest child through high school, or to reach some other such goal or state before they get divorced.

Pragma always looks at things in context and know his or her basic values, scaling everything by them. (e.g. if sex life is mediocre, pragma may consult a sex counsellor, but is more likely to assign sexual activity a low value in his or her value system and simply accept its mediocrity. "After all, he is a good provider, and being orgasmic isn't all that important." "She is a good mother, and I can get by on coitus once a week without getting too tense.")

While other types may have spontaneous orgasms or masturbate just from thoughts of the beloved, pragma probably learns to recognise sexual tension and relieve it when necessary for sleep or comfort (if sex is not devalued).

Pragma thinks ahead about family size (an probably even about what sex the children will be). If pragma is a schoolteacher, he or she may plan an October/November conception so the baby will arrive during vacation.

Ludus

The ideal constructed type of a ludic lover is that of a person who 'plays' love affairs as he or she plays games or puzzles — to win, to get the greatest rewards for the least cost.

A ludic lover hates dependency, either in himself/herself or in others. This type shies away from commitment of any sort (does not like lovers to take him or her for granted). The ludic lover enjoys strategies, and may keep two or three or even four lovers "on the string" at one time. A ludic lover may even create a fictional lover to discourage a real one's hopes for a permanent relationship. He or she avoids long range plans, is careful not to date the same person often enough to create the illusion of a stable relationship. A ludic lover would rather find a new sex partner than to work out sexual problems with an old one. And yet, he or she may suddenly show up for a replay, even years later, with birthday flowers, a bottle of a favourite wine, a sentimental Valentine, or a record of a favourite song, and vanish just as suddenly. A ludic lover usually enjoys love affairs, and hence rarely regrets them unless the threat of commitment or dependency becomes too great.

Dates with a ludic person are never dull, even though they may not happen with great regularity. He or she is never possessive or jealous. The ludic lover usually has good self-esteem and usually is assured of current success in love as well as most other areas. Unlike a pragmatic lover, a ludic lover never reveals all of himself or herself nor demands such revelation by partners.

Ludic lovers are not likely to be very sophisticated sexually. As a rule, they have only one sexual routine; if the sex partner is not pleased by the ludic lover's sexual pattern, then the ludic one simply finds another partner rather than attempting to improve an unsatisfying relationship. If she does not like his sexual behaviour, the ludic man moves on to someone who does; if he does not get an erection or bring her to orgasm on his own (with no help for her) the ludic woman looks for a man who will.

Sex is self-centred and may be exploitative rather than symbolic of a relationship. A ludic lover does not listen to (or take time for) "feedback" that suggests commitment, which is "scary." A ludic lover may not even want to be his or her partner's best sex partner because that might necessitate commitment or dependency that would be "awful." Physical appearance of the partner is less important than other qualities, such as self-sufficiency and lack of demanding behaviour, to ludic persons.

Ludic lovers within relationships may be intensely competitive. Everything is a game and winning the game is very important to them. Game-playing might extend to normal domestic activities such as competing over who takes the "best" telephone messages. With every winner there must be a loser and being a loser all the time is not sustaining emotionally. For this and other reasons, relationships with ludic persons, whilst they might be enjoyable and fun in the short term are unlikely to be enduring.

Acknowledgements

Universities of Yale, Illinois, Chicago and the College of Liberal Arts, CA, and Sternberg, Weis et al (2006) and Sternberg, Barnes et al (1988).

Tags: Psychology of Love, Love, Other types of love, Agape, Storge, Ludus, Pragma, Mania

But I had some underlying concerns about what really happens when we do loving relationships. I was very happy with my feelings about real or true love being unconditional giving, I still am. I have some concerns about it still, although these are more about the world in which we live rather than those feelings themselves.

I was not really sure how to start talking about loving relationships, about the vocabulary to use so I've synthesised and combined bits from here, there and everywhere to give the words a broader and better fit to my own feelings, thoughts and beliefs.

I have drawn on a lot of material that can be demonstrated to be generalisable by and large, although there are many exceptions, but there are some patterns too that are helpful to understand.

One word of warning, if you are expecting a cookbook of "how to" ideas, better to buy a recipe book then read this as I don't believe that such books work.

I believe that there may be a set of characteristics, of “love components”, that are common to most relationships.

I'll talk about those here as well as some of the phases of early development stages in love relationships and the events that might be expected to take place within them.

I want to break away from most of what has been written before in that I want to allow for unending growth possibilities in love. Most empiricists and other psychologists would simply ascribe a sort of structural determinism that seeks to impose a form of limiting rationality on what is, in my view, entirely subjective, intuitive and unbounded in its reality and possibilities.

To join things up with other aspects of our social world about which I have written before I am moving to a world where I see intuition, emotions, feelings, consciousness and unconsciousness as being those phenomena that influence our worlds of love relationships rather than some pseudo-scientific rationality that might be imposed on it by experts.

This is very much a work-in-progress. In part, it draws on published material by Robert Sternberg (et al), at least for its outline framework. I do have a sense that Sternberg may be moving away from being the hero of empiricists to someone who might take a similar position to me. I do not know. I sense that where we might differ is that he still tends to see love as stories that might inhabit our unconscious minds which he and experts like him might interpret (A latent determinist who acknowledges that love is ultimately a subjective construct) whereas I believe that the only way to achieve an enduring love is to move to a place where love is synonymous with greater consciousness, accessible intuition, personal responsibility and freedom.

In his book "Love is a story" (OUP 1998), Sternberg breaks away from the traditionalists. He acknowledges that love functions at the intuitive rather than rational levels and that our experience plays a part in how we love too. He recognises that psychotherapists have failed to understand the underlying realities of our relationships. Psychotherapists have tended to focus mainly on the manifestation of difficulties (symptoms) in relationships, rather than the underlying reality of our relationships that may give rise to those difficulties.

The problem that I have with Sternberg's work thereafter is that he attempts to break down love into a set of narrative systems containing a series of presuppositions that people bring to relationships of which they are (largely) unconscious. After this he sets out his expert analysis of twenty-five different types of narrative with his view on their interpretation and their capability of adaptation.

I am not totally sure about how unconscious these stories are or for that matter, whether his work is a novel thought that has been enlarged to the proportions of a theory. I do agree with his thoughts about subjectivity and intuition, however, and that is a very important leap forward.

It might be an interesting experiment for us all to go off and write our own versions of short love stories that attract or appeal to us in some very deep way. I like this idea. We could all invent our own love fables. We would need to take care to engage with our hearts and write the story we really want, not the story that conforms to all our cultural myths or social norms and ideals, or to the expectations of our partner, but something that would be truly meaningful to us in love.

It would be important for us to connect to the story with our hearts without any inventive embellishments or affectations. Perhaps we might try to write a short love story with a hopeful ending, a story of the positive possibilities of where love might take us.

But we should just write a story, just a piece of fiction. It might be set in modern or other times, but it would be important to express succinctly the feelings of the protagonists as they move through this story. No tricks just a story; a story that takes no more than 20 or 30 minutes to narrate.

Perhaps when we have made our stories. We might sit down somewhere peaceful and calm with a glass of wine and share these stories with our loved ones. We might be amazed about what they might tell us both about each other!

The components of loving relationships

These are the conventional groupings of love components originally identified by Robert Sternberg:

Erotic Passion – This is the stuff of physical attraction. It's the racing heartbeat, sexual desire, erotic excitation and a physiological activation that feels just great! It's like being on drugs. The best sort of drugs as masses of endorphins course around our bodies and make us feel high!

Romantic Passion - This is a dimension that differs between cultures but for us it is a process of what I might call positive idealised projection. Here we take the very best parts of ourselves, often of the idealised contrasexual image that we all hold inside us and project them on to the other person. We see perfection in the other; we see not who they really are, but who we hope they will be. We seek out the good traits of the other. We find what we feel we need in what we see and feel of them.

It's here we do our romantic identification of ourselves with romantic ideals (cultural myths), of our belief that there is something magical in our relationship, our belief in the omnipotence of love as something that will inexorably produce happiness.

Intimacy - Intimacy is truly wonderful. (See, I'm a love enthusiast really!) This is the place of our special bond in an affective love union: It's where affective support, understanding, communication, trust, self-revelations, security, comfort and ease with one's partner lives.

My next “component” is where I see the possibility of deep and lasting love residing (or not, as it's simply a conscious choice and may be thought too difficult by many):

Companionate Consummate Giving Love – In part, this is the place of the unconditional love that I wrote about in the "love and sex" blog. There I focused on one dimension only (Unconditional giving love) to distinguish love from sex. Here I would like to expand our possibilities of love to include all four dimensions of deep friendship, its passionate components (including the expression and satisfaction of sexual desire), unconditional giving love, intimacy, as well as the possibility of making our commitment to maintain this love.

This almost looks like a place of emotional utopia to me, but who would not wish for it? Perhaps by understanding our stories and allowing their past pain and despair to heal, of exposing our consciousness, and knowing what it is for which we strive, we might write this new love story for ourselves. I believe this is a conscious choice. There is nothing intrinsic, mystical, innate or god-given here; it's simply a choice. But don't get me wrong, it is not easy!

Love is not necessarily something that happens exclusively inside of us as individuals. It is that too, but our ideas about love come from our belief systems, our religions, our cultural myths and social norms, from politicians, corporations, from the media, from literature and from Hollywood. In fact, our notions about love come from all those beliefs and ideas that uphold our social world. They come from what I have collectively called our consciousness. It is consciousness that embraces and informs all of our ideas about love and that lives both within us and outside us too.

In a television interview after his engagement to Princess Diana was announced, Prince Charles was asked if the couple was in love. Diana responded for him quickly and enthusiastically. "Of course," she said with a warm smile. Charles added, under his breath, "Whatever 'in love' means". Charles's uncertainty is not that surprising since love means many different things to different people. Ultimately love is whatever we choose it to be. We do have that freedom. But make no mistake, it takes real courage to stand up for the love we want, for the love that is most satisfying, healthy and enduring, since it may mean flying in the face of all that our culture holds to be valuable.

Otherwise there are no given truths about love, no deeper meaning that is accessible only to psychologists or anyone else. There is biology. There are the biological drives to mate, reproduce and parent but what I am looking for here is an emotional state that might promote our health and wellbeing that includes our loved ones and our families; A healthy loving positive environment is also conducive to the development and growth of secure, confident people.

My own interest is in exploring and discovering the emotions and behaviours that might produce the healthiest, enduring and most satisfying ways of being. There is no deep truth to uncover; our truth is what we make it. We have freedom of choice and the ability to take responsibility for ourselves (albeit that many find that difficult), to determine our own lives in ways that they may serve us and others around us best.

Of course, I should add that I would not consider all forms of love to be necessarily healthy and I have not addressed the question here of "why love anyway?" I will look at that question and unhealthy forms of love in a later blog. I will also look at ideas about "needing" love, and attachment theory where our experiences of infancy are seen as shaping our adult romantic lives and much more besides.

Originally I had written about companionate agape love, but agape was problematic to me. Agape has been cited by many others to correspond with altruistic, sacrificial love and I felt uncomfortable about it as it smacked of the "sack-cloth and ashes" denial of the sort often associated with Christian fundamentalism. I do not find the ideas espoused by that sort of Christian to be either that loving or attractive, so I have decided to distance myself from it and revisit agape later.

Going back to the piece on love and sex, here is what I wrote about real / true love there:

"Real love is an act of giving unconditionally. To offer true love, to will the good of another, is to accept one's own vulnerability, weakness, insignificance and humility. Love is a responsible act of will and of choice.

As I wrote in "the myth of falling in love" it is not something that one falls into! You might fall into the swimming pool, but not into love. You can fall into fatal attraction, and you can fall into desperate desire but you cannot fall into love. Love requires courage as in a way it's a sacrifice of what our modern culture believes to be valuable. It means standing up for love, leaving the pack, not as a terrorist or subversive, but with something better than what others may see in their blindness.

Love is the expression of profound emotional qualities such as patience, forbearance, belief in the other, compassion, understanding and forgiveness.

The difference between romantic or erotic love and true love is the difference between receiving and giving. A lot of us do not give generously of our hearts at all nor do we give that selflessly either. Instead we are addressing a covert desire to avoid being abandoned. This apparent generosity is not love at all; it is emotional bribery.

The hardest part is about giving. True love is about giving and nothing less. It is about giving love rather than desperately searching to be loved. It's the only attitude that can begin to carry you through the agony of human limitation and mortality. Love that is based on giving, not receiving, is true and lasting. It is never fleeting and can never fly off into despair and hate.

It is a pity that true love is feared by most of us, and is hardly ever taught to anyone, children or adults."

That was part of the story, but I do wish to allow for the expression and satisfaction of sexual desire, of growing our affectionate bonds of understanding and intimacy and building deep friendship here too. My main aim of the love and sex piece was to show that love and sex are different and to talk about how we might build a solid emotional foundation where real love might develop.

All relationships need some aspect of friendship to survive, although some unhealthy relationships may exhibit marginal friendship only (or none at all). But this is a new place of deep friendship and deep possibilities for me, for the most wondrous possibilities.

Sternberg talks about "commitment" being a phase of a relationship. I want to stay away from phases that prescribe determined courses of relationships in all but one and that is the first phase, the romantic phase. I'll re-define commitment as an event or activity that takes place somewhere past the end of the romantic phase but I am not going to set out anything beyond that.

The romantic phase: This might be called the fireworks phase! It's a really wonderful phase. There's a massive growth in Erotic Passion, which according to empiricists, plateaus at the end of this phase although it usually continues for a number of years at the plateau level then diminishes. Its continuance at a level that is satisfying to the people in a relationship may continue if the relationship is to survive the longer term.

Also Romantic Passion soars up like a rocket. Everything is good, positive even euphoric during this phase. We see a lot of perfection around that is often just a romantic illusion.

One should not pour scorn upon this phase, it is a wonderful, exciting (and for some, an addictive) experience and I believe that it helps us build up the endurance for the life challenges that follow, and they always do.

There are many variant or deviant endings (the sexual conquest, romance addiction or serial repetition are examples.) that can occur either within or after this phase. Nothing here is cast in stone.

Interestingly enough and based on massive empirical evidence, the typical duration of the romantic phase is about six months.

I believe we might make another inference here though: Where there has been strong development of Intimacy, the relationship may move towards commitment, but the point of outward commitment is certainly not always at six months or thereabouts, but some commitment, even if it is just purely an emotional commitment, is needed to carry the relationship forward at the point where the romantic phase ends.

Two events will normally occur after the romantic phase although it is very possible that they may happen during this phase in some part, but not completely.

The first event is relationship "testing". This is the part where the partners ask, "Is this person really the one for me?" "Do we want the same things of our lives?" "Will being with this person be someone that I can endure and who contributes to the life I want, as well as my everyday life now?" "Could I really live with this person?" "Do we understand each other well enough to make a commitment?" "Can I tolerate this person's impulsive / overly measured behaviour?" "Can I trust this person with the knowledge of my true situation?" "Will this person support me in my goals and desires for my life?"

Testing generally happens after the romantic phase has ended. It's the bump back down to reality. It's here that we start to see the person as the human being they really are. Our bubble of euphoric bliss bursts and gets deflated. In the normal course of relationship development, it's the first event to be a make-or-break point and it's one of the most important decision points in a relationship.

One thing I would say though is that studies show that Romantic Passion continues to grow through this phase and beyond for some years so testing is not inconsistent with maintaining our romantic ideals in the relationship.

The next event is about "commitment".

Commitment is a real place of struggle. It's often talked about as the "power struggle phase" or the "growth phase". I prefer the latter term but there is a real power struggle here too.

It's where partners negotiate the balance of power within a relationship, the style of that power whether it's democratic, consensual or autocratic.

It has to happen so better do it consciously rather than fight!

It's also here that personal boundaries are set down and negotiated as well as our need for personal space and all our other emotional and personal needs. Forget the marriage contract, as it is here where the emotional agreement will be reached that will form the basis of any companionate or conjugal bond.

The commitment process need not be hostile. For example, one might decide to adopt a gentler consensual decision-making style but inevitably there will be some tension as each partner sets out his or her needs and wants. Personally I don't enjoy hostility, antagonisms and antipathy and I'm sure that there are constructive ways of agreeing personal needs in the form of making and discussing personal requests of each other without trampling on each other's feelings. Ultimately each partner will need to feel comfortable with the agreement, if an agreement is to be reached and growth or security in love is to follow. Where power plays or games strategies are adopted to gain biased benefit for one partner or the other, resentment may follow close thereafter.

One last and very powerful thought: there is no doubt that the passions of romance and eroticism may diminish over time, but it is my belief that they should be enjoyed to the full for as long as they endure (and as long as possible!) A loving sexuality is very healthy. In fact, I believe it is a prerequisite of developing and maintaining emotional and mental health. It is not, however, a substitute for love. There is something more that may reward all our pain, struggles, hurt and the apparent transience of these passions. I believe that deep friendship, intimate and unconditional giving love, has an amazing power to grow and develop indefinitely and infinitely during our lifetimes. For me, that is what makes love worthwhile. I know of nothing else in life that is more desirable, worthwhile or beautiful.

Tags: Development of love relationships, Psychology of Love, Love, Robert Sternberg