The "Me" Relationship

"If you can't love yourself...how in the hell can you love somebody else?" - RuPaul Charles

Relationship [rɪˈleɪʃənʃɪp] n:

1. The condition or fact of being related; connection or association.

2. Connection by blood or marriage; kinship.

3. A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other: has a close relationship with his siblings.

4. A romantic or sexual involvement.
~ Merriam-Webster Dictionary

When one is in a relationship with a significant other, shouldn't it be considered antithetical to the very notion of a relationship to have it self-centered?

That's what Tara Parker-Pope's argued in her Sustainable Love column in the New York Times titled "The Happy Marriage is the 'Me' Marriage." And the idea of having a more self-centered you in a relationship seemingly made it more enlightening and satisfying for all parties involved, and not, as Parker-Pope suggests, by putting the relationship first.

I suppose if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. After all, my generation hears so many sob stories about previous generations' marriages staying together for various outside reasons, third parties including children, religious beliefs, money, whatever applies to your personal relationship. What kind of message does that send to the third parties though, the children who see you stay married even if you yourself are not fulfilled; people in your religious circles who pray for you, but do not live with you; trappings are more important than being happy. Et cetera, et cetera. At least now it seems like the current generation has the wherewithal to be in relationships that are fulfilling together and to the self. That above all is important.

For years, people have told me that marriage is about "compromise," and I don't deny that much is true. What I can say is there is a lot to be said about a couple that is comfortable within itself that the individual that makes up the sum-of-the-parts still has outside interests, or better yet shares these interests with their significant other.

For years, I'd been trying to find that delicate balance. I was in a long-term relationship that it seemed like I had to do a lot of changing of my ways, while I allowed him a lot of freedom to do what he wanted. Was it any surprise that we didn't last? It would be one thing if we liked going to the same places, or doing the same things, but the reality was that we stayed together for a lot of wrong reasons...those "third parties" if you will.

One thing I can say about being married is that it's nothing like I had expected. There is compromise for sure, but compromise in a good way. It's understanding but it's also one that when I wake up in the morning, I am often anticipating what the universe has in store for us. But us as an entity that can act separately. I can go to dinner with friends, he can go bike riding. At the end of the day, when we go to bed, we are fulfilled with ourselves and our outside interests, and we appreciate that individuality enough to be able to stand in solidarity.

I took a Sustainable Marriage Quiz in the NYT as well, based on this article, and I am happy to say I scored on the highly expansive side. A highly expansive relationship can evolve and still stand to grow and doesn't stay stagnant. This is important for all vital interests in a relationship to take care of your brain and be able to contribute to the relationship. We are figuring out that there is a big "What's-in-it-for-me" situation going on with marriage these days. Maybe that's what we needed.