To analyze a relationship, we can use the following 5-element framework. There are five attributes that determine if a relationship, not limited to a romantic relationship, will work or not – mutual enjoyment of each other’s company, respect, shared experience, reciprocity, and trust.
That being said, this framework only gives us a rough pentagon to access the relationship. What actually matters the most in a relationship remains unclear.
To begin with, let us consider the forms of romantic relationships - short-term and long-term. In a short-term romantic relationship, both parties focus on the attraction and the present moment without considering the relationship’s future terms or the practicality, such as the place to settle in, how you will live together, or whether your values truly align. It is almost poetic, considering how you look into each other’s eyes - the romance is purely emotional and hormone-driven, and at that moment, time basically does not exist. This timeless experience of love will soon be hit by the reality that life goes on and has to move on, and we just purely cannot stare at each other’s eyes forever, even if we want to. Therefore, this ephemeral yet beautiful form of love comes and goes like fireworks.
In a long-term romantic relationship, more elements are thrown into the relationship equation - mortgage, kids, family trips, jobs, and other aspects of life. Some may consider these practical elements an “adult” love, but some may argue that this takes the passion out of love. Nonetheless, these terms have to be considered if a couple wants to get married, have kids, and have a long-term, stable relationship. That said, regarding these practical terms, we should ask ourselves, why do we want a long relationship? Why is it so if enjoying love at the moment and being future-worry-free is naive?
The 5-element framework mentioned earlier could, at some point, prove to be impractical if we access these attributes quantitatively - how could you assess the trust in the relationship on a scale of 1-5? It will make more sense to think of the trust in the relationship as a binary, yes-or-no assessment. However, there is one single quality that could ride over the top of the five elements and more elements to be considered - it is the appreciation of what the partner is doing and achieving. A Formula 1 champion could be a shiny star in one’s eyes and a piece of matte wood in another’s eyes. Consider these typical dialogues that lead to an argument of not understanding each other: “Why do you spend your time driving around a track?” or “Am I not much more important than that?”.
Therefore, acknowledging one’s achievement and life goal should override the other quality checks. Without admiration in one’s possession, the initial attraction or the love for a long-lasting relationship could only go thus far. Should this admiration for one’s achievement or life goal be mutual? I doubt not.1
Consider the difference in the reproductive systems of males and females and how they complement each other. In a romantic relationship, we should not strive for equality over reciprocity concerning how we complement each other regarding life goals. Suppose both parties in a romantic relationship are as ambitious as the other for their life goal. In that case, they are not complementing each other, and there will surely be a crisis building up to a point when they have to confront each other and make a choice between their ambitions and their relationship.
The idea that one party in a romantic relationship should be more ambitious while the other one should be more supportive does not suggest traditional thoughts like women have to follow men. The opposite could also be true. What is important is the combination of admiration and ambition, which could well be translated to one party having to sacrifice or one party having to work harder. Striking for this match, in my opinion, is what matters the most in a passionate, healthy, and sustainable relationship with respect to other thinkable qualities.
Find the one in whose eyes you shine or vice versa.
1 By asking "should it be", I imply "it should not be". And by putting I doubt not, I mean I do not doubt "it should not be".
That being said, this framework only gives us a rough pentagon to access the relationship. What actually matters the most in a relationship remains unclear.
To begin with, let us consider the forms of romantic relationships - short-term and long-term. In a short-term romantic relationship, both parties focus on the attraction and the present moment without considering the relationship’s future terms or the practicality, such as the place to settle in, how you will live together, or whether your values truly align. It is almost poetic, considering how you look into each other’s eyes - the romance is purely emotional and hormone-driven, and at that moment, time basically does not exist. This timeless experience of love will soon be hit by the reality that life goes on and has to move on, and we just purely cannot stare at each other’s eyes forever, even if we want to. Therefore, this ephemeral yet beautiful form of love comes and goes like fireworks.
In a long-term romantic relationship, more elements are thrown into the relationship equation - mortgage, kids, family trips, jobs, and other aspects of life. Some may consider these practical elements an “adult” love, but some may argue that this takes the passion out of love. Nonetheless, these terms have to be considered if a couple wants to get married, have kids, and have a long-term, stable relationship. That said, regarding these practical terms, we should ask ourselves, why do we want a long relationship? Why is it so if enjoying love at the moment and being future-worry-free is naive?
The 5-element framework mentioned earlier could, at some point, prove to be impractical if we access these attributes quantitatively - how could you assess the trust in the relationship on a scale of 1-5? It will make more sense to think of the trust in the relationship as a binary, yes-or-no assessment. However, there is one single quality that could ride over the top of the five elements and more elements to be considered - it is the appreciation of what the partner is doing and achieving. A Formula 1 champion could be a shiny star in one’s eyes and a piece of matte wood in another’s eyes. Consider these typical dialogues that lead to an argument of not understanding each other: “Why do you spend your time driving around a track?” or “Am I not much more important than that?”.
Therefore, acknowledging one’s achievement and life goal should override the other quality checks. Without admiration in one’s possession, the initial attraction or the love for a long-lasting relationship could only go thus far. Should this admiration for one’s achievement or life goal be mutual? I doubt not.1
Consider the difference in the reproductive systems of males and females and how they complement each other. In a romantic relationship, we should not strive for equality over reciprocity concerning how we complement each other regarding life goals. Suppose both parties in a romantic relationship are as ambitious as the other for their life goal. In that case, they are not complementing each other, and there will surely be a crisis building up to a point when they have to confront each other and make a choice between their ambitions and their relationship.
The idea that one party in a romantic relationship should be more ambitious while the other one should be more supportive does not suggest traditional thoughts like women have to follow men. The opposite could also be true. What is important is the combination of admiration and ambition, which could well be translated to one party having to sacrifice or one party having to work harder. Striking for this match, in my opinion, is what matters the most in a passionate, healthy, and sustainable relationship with respect to other thinkable qualities.
Find the one in whose eyes you shine or vice versa.
1 By asking "should it be", I imply "it should not be". And by putting I doubt not, I mean I do not doubt "it should not be".