What Creates Chemistry In Relationships?

As a couples therapist and dating coach, the most overriding questions that I deal with concern the nature of relationships. These questions include: Why is someone attracted to one person but not another? What makes a relationship successful? Why do some people seem to have all the luck while others never seem to be able catch a break? Similarly, why do some people keep repeating the same mistakes? And why do so many people stay in relationships that have clearly gone south? This article will take a look at these questions.

Theories abound about these questions. The aforementioned "some people have all the luck" theory is popular with country–western singers. Astrologers believe that the answers are the result of the alignment of the sun, the stars, and the moon. Ancient Romans held Cupid and his arrows responsible.  Many psychoanalysts attribute theories of love and attraction to an unconscious search for a mother's (or father's) love. I, too, have my own thoughts on the subject. As a way to begin looking at this complex question of what brings couples together and what keeps them together—for better or for worse, I would like to introduce you to Joe and Gina, a married couple and former clients of mine who can show us a lot about the rules of attraction.

It would be an interesting exercise if we could somehow see a videotape of a married couple's first date. I bet that we could see the seeds of what would develop into the relationship's strengths and weaknesses. Joe and Gina, a couple whom I saw in marriage counseling many moons ago, are my favorite illustration of this. They were a couple in their mid-thirties who sought help because Gina was very unhappy in the relationship and contemplating divorce. Several weeks into the therapy they mentioned something about the night they had first met. I hadn't heard this story so I asked them about it.

They told me that they had met at a party at a mutual friend's house. Gina said that they clicked right away. I asked what the attraction had been and Gina said that during the party she had been drawn to Joe because he had been the funniest person she had ever met. She went on to say that he started talking about his work and told story after story about what he did at work and whom he worked with. Then he talked about his family and all of his crazy aunts and uncles. Then he talked about high school and all of the antics the he and his buddies pulled. She concluded by saying that she had laughed so hard between 8:00 and midnight that her side hurt and she had just about wet her pants.

Bear in mind that I knew these people fairly well, so when she was finished I pointed out that they hadn't even been on a date at that time but I wondered by the end of the evening what they knew about each other. Gina said, "What did I know about Joe? I knew a ton about him. I knew where he worked, who he worked with, what he wanted to do with his career, where he grew up, the constellation of his family, where he went to high school, the names of his high school friends, and the activities that he participated in."

So I asked Joe what he knew about Gina. Joe was very clever and he didn't miss a beat. He said, "By the end of the party I knew three things, “I knew that I loved the sound of her laugh, the shape of her ass, and I also knew her telephone number." When Gina heard that, she got an incredible "aha" look on her face and said that she now understood things in a way that she had never understood before. She said, "That night was fifteen years ago and I now see that all of the issues that have me in a marriage counselor's office contemplating divorce were present at the party. Joe was a self-centered son of a bitch who only thinks of himself that very first night when I fell for him." She added that she could also see how her opinion of his stories had evolved from finding them amusing to finding them obnoxious.

Although I was glad that Gina had developed some insight into Joe's personality and her marital problems, in order for counseling to be beneficial, people must have insight into their own problematic behavior. So the next question that I asked her was what I considered to be the most important. I asked her what she would have done if Joe had stopped himself and said, "What's the matter with me? I'm monopolizing the conversation. Tell me who you are, what you think, what you believe." Gina said, "What would I have done? I would have excused myself ASAP to see if the hostess needed help in the kitchen. I would have been so uncomfortable."

As we talked about this in the counseling, it became clear that Joe dealt with his issues and insecurities by needing to be like Johnny Carson (remember, I saw Joe and Gina years ago). What was less clear was whether Gina needed to be like Ed McMahon or the audience. Ed, as you will recall was always there to back up Johnny and never was the center of attention himself while the audience was always present, but for all intents and purposes, was invisible.

This anecdote serves as a great illustration of the way in which people's personalities blend together to form a relationship. Now let’s look at the questions that were raised in the beginning. Clearly, Joe and Gina had an opposites attract thing going. But why did Joe need to be the center of attention and be with someone who found him funny? And why did Gina need to keep herself out of the limelight, and why didn't she find it odd that she and Joe had spent hours together and he hadn't asked any questions about her?

The forces that bring people together and the bonds that keep them together—for good or ill—is a huge topic. I believe that looking at the way in which people get their needs met in relationships is a good starting point. You old folks like me may remember that in the 1970s and 1980s assertiveness training workshops were extremely popular. They had a great way of conceptualizing the manner in which men and women get their needs met. The most common participants in assertiveness training workshops were women like Gina who wanted to become more forceful and get their voices heard more effectively, but the concepts are relevant not only to meek women, but to overbearing men too, and everyone in between.

This model shows that the manner in which people get their needs met can be thought of as being on a continuum with the two ends being unhealthy or dysfunctional and the middle representing a healthy range:

The people on the right get their needs met by respecting their own wants, wishes, needs, and desires while disrespecting the needs of others. This is a working definition of self-centered behavior:

Although there are exceptions to the rule, men, more than women, tend to fall into the self-centered category. There is a range of personalities and behaviors that comprise this group. At first glance it may sound odd, but a lot of the people who fit this definition of self-centered are quite popular and a lot of fun to hang around with. Joe is an example of this. He was a great guy with many friends and, as Gina described, he was the life of the party. The negative aspects of his personality only showed up in his marriage, his most intimate of relationships.

Of course, the self-centered category also includes people whom everyone would agree have personality problems. This would include the selfish—“C’mon, I’m only on three softball teams and you can come watch”—the alcoholic—“what difference does it make when I get home? You’re asleep anyway”—the narcissist—“it pisses me off that you’re having your period when I want to have sex”—the abuser—“I wouldn’t have gotten so mad if you had listened to what I said”—and a myriad of other people who need to have power and control in relationships.

The people on the left side of the continuum are the opposite of self-centered. They are selfless to an unhealthy degree. They get their needs met by showing respect to the wants, wishes, needs, and desires of others while showing disrespect to their own needs:

The majority of people who fit the description of selfless are women. This does not mean that men are immune from giving to others at their own expense but, in general, selflessness—giving more than you get—is an issue that women struggle with. Everyone tends to like these women and the bonds they form with one another create strong, BFF-type relationships. However, when they connect with Alpha males (and females!) they, sooner or later, feel “used and abused.” At first glance, it may seem that putting the needs of others before one’s own needs is a positive trait. However, when it  crosses a line and the person finds herself being taken advantage of or treated like a doormat it is no longer a virtue.

Although the label that is most frequently given to selfless people is co-dependent, I think that we can come up with several subtypes. There is the people-pleaser—“don’t worry about me. As long as you’re happy, I’m happy”—the self-sacrificer—“no, no you take the chair. I’m fine right here on the floor”—the mother hen—“stay right where you are. I’ll get your plate ready”—the I-need-a-boyfriend-or-I’m lost—“the reason that I’ve come to therapy is that I don’t have a boyfriend”—and the victim—“I shouldn’t have disturbed him. He’s been under a lot of stress lately.”

I saw something apropos to the people who fall on the selfless side of the continuum on the Discovery Channel. I learned that every animal that has eyes on the side of its head—squirrels, mice, and rabbits, to name a few—are always, in nature, somebody else’s lunch. These are nature’s victims. If we stopped and talked to one of them, “Mrs. Rabbit, how are you today?” She would answer, “Well there is a fox over there and he’s smacking his lips and there’s a hawk flying overhead and there is a hunter in the distance with a rifle.” In other words, nature’s victims base their sense of wellness on what others are doing. Similarly, if you ask a co-dependent woman how she is doing, she’ll answer in terms of how the people in her life are doing—“I’m great. Tom was in a good mood all weekend and Danny got to school on time without me waking him up and Kristin found the most wonderful dress for the prom.”

Returning to the continuum and the question of what attracts people to one another, we always marry someone the same distance from the middle as ourselves. This isn’t always opposites attracting. Two people who reside on the right side of the continuum can become a couple. Their relationship will tend to be passionate and their conflicts will tend to be heated. While two people who reside on the left side can also become a couple. Their relationship will tend to lack passion and they’ll describe themselves as “never arguing” but not really happy. But, as often as not, opposites do attract. Joe and Gina are a good example of that.

When a relationship falls within the healthy range:

The relationship is well functioning and stays in balance. It has the potential for a “‘'til death do us part” life expectancy. The person on the left does not get taken advantage of and the person on the right is respectful of his (or her) partner. Incidentally, in this arrangement, the person on the left is the quintessential mother. She would be described as loving, compassionate, and nurturing. While the person on the right has the personality that is made for rising through the corporate ranks, he is an ambitious go-getter.

When a relationship falls outside the healthy range problems are inevitable:

The people who come to therapy most frequently are women who are feeling unhappy, overwhelmed, and unfulfilled as the result of living life on the left side of the continuum. They give and give and give and don’t get much in return. Often they report that they know that they are getting the short end of the stick in their marriage or relationship but feel powerless about doing anything about it. Other times, even though it is clear that they give far more than they get, they report that they are happy in their marriages—“Bill is a great guy, he is just very busy with work and under a lot of stress”—but they
report they are suffering from depression. Many people in our post-Prozac era find it too threatening to acknowledge marital dissatisfaction but are comfortable with attributing their unhappiness to genetics and a chemical imbalance.

With regards to the people on the right side of the continuum, they tend not to come to counseling on their own volition. Rather, they seek help when their partner has had enough and forces couples counseling. Or these types come when their self-centeredness has gotten them in hot water. All of the “boys will be boys” types of problems like extramarital affairs and alcoholism fall into this category.

Once in therapy, the goal is to get the self-centered to be more mindful of their partners’ wants, wishes, needs, and desires and to get the selfless to show respect for their own wants, wishes, needs, and desires. Joe and Gina sought help when their marriage was in a state of crisis. The trick was to help Gina gain—and, importantly, maintain—a sense of empowerment and to help Joe find a way to be comfortable when sharing the limelight.

In therapy Gina was able to identify the fears and anxieties that made her comfortable staying in the background, and with Joe’s help and support, she addressed these fears and developed behaviors that allowed her to get her fair share of attention. Similarly, Joe became aware of the insecurities that drove him to be the center of attention, and with Gina’s help and support, he developed the confidence to share the stage with her and he learned to place value on being sensitive to Gina’s feelings. To their credit, they pulled it off beautifully. At last report, their marriage was on track and their relationship was thriving.