411 - What’s Your Price of Admission?
Deal breakers in relationships
In the modern age of online dating, it’s hard not to wonder if we’re becoming too picky about potential partnerships. Could this mean we’re missing out on wonderful potential partnerships?
Research for this episode showed that there is a huge range of behaviors or traits that people consider to be deal breakers for them. A few examples include:
Eating with their mouth open or talking with food in their mouth.
Being a mouth-breather.
Not being punctual to a date.
The date not enjoying their jokes or humor.
Discussing their ex on the first date.
Interrupting a lot.
Having children under the age of 4.
Having children at all.
Checking phone while on a date.
Being an anxious-attachment style.
Lack of hygiene or care in outward presentation.
Dad jokes.
Not being fit or healthy enough.
Bad haircut.
Being vegan.
Incompatible politics.
Expecting you to be a mind reader.
Not anticipating their partner’s needs.
Some of them may seem silly to us, but there’s nothing wrong with identifying behaviors or traits you don’t feel you can handle in a relationship. Ultimately, we found that it comes down to solvable problems versus perpetual problems.
Perpetual problems in a relationship might look like:
Differing on whether or not to have children.
Which religious beliefs to practice in the household.
Preference of monogamy vs. non-monogamy.
How to handle finances/retirement goals.
Sexual risk tolerance with other partners.
Homebody vs. party animal.
Most of the time, conflict in a relationship has to do with perpetual problems, which are grounded in fundamental differences between people. They are either differences in personality that create conflict, or differences in lifestyle needs. If these problems become gridlocked, it means they’ve been mishandled and are a source of discomfort for the couple when discussed. If the underlying issues are not addressed, it can feel like discussions get us nowhere.
Takeaways
It’s a good idea to have some notion of what you want in a partner, but don’t limit yourself so much that you miss out on the many wonderful people out there.
Some of the qualities you thought you might want in a partner may end up being what you dislike the most.
Some things in a relationship may never change, and that can be ok! According to the Gottman Institute, only 31% of problems are solvable.
Unsolved problems may be irritating, but it’s important to evaluate whether they may just be the “Price of Admission” of being with this person. Agreeing to the relationship means agreeing to those things.
If you need help determining if something is worth its admission price, RADAR, Repair SHOP, enlisting a trusted friend or professional, or a couples counselor can be beneficial.
If the pros of the benefits outweigh the cons, try to make peace with the challenges and let any of that animosity you feel go. If the problems become gridlocked, however, and you find your list of cons outweighs the pros, it’s okay to break up.
Transcript
This document may contain small transcription errors. If you find one please let us know at info@multiamory.com and we will fix it ASAP.
Jase: On this episode of the Multiamory podcast, we're going to be talking about annoyances and deal-breakers. Recently, we've been wondering in an age of online dating where choice seems to be infinite, have we all gotten a little too picky and is that causing us to miss out on or prematurely toss away partners who could be great for us? A lot of excellent potential partners out there could be the ones that we're eliminating just based on some random criteria. Today, we're going to be discussing deal-breakers, perpetual problems, and the concept of the price of admission for dating someone.
Emily: Just to start this all out, when you hear the word deal-breaker, what do you think of?
Dedeker: I imagine myself sitting in a wine bar across from a dude and I have a very somatic experience of how it feels in my body after he said something horrible, and I'm just like, "Well, not this one. Sure, not this one."
Jase: I see.
Dedeker: I went on a whole journey.
Jase: Wow.
Emily: Yes. Wow. Okay. What about you, Jase?
Jase: Yes. In my mind, it's more like, "Yes, I'm a few dates in," and it's kind of like, "Yes, this isn't going to work out.'" Something about for me, they're not okay with non-monogamy. I mean that will probably be a first date.
Emily: Yes.
Dedeker: Like that person who looked at your face.
Jase: A person who looked at my face. Yes, it was just I'm-
Emily: Oh, I forgot about that.
Jase: -sure people are into that, but I'm not and so for me, it was just no. No, I guess when I think deal-breaker, I think something pretty seriously incompatible though, not even face-looking necessarily because maybe if I said, "Don't do that--" If everything else was great, maybe we could've gotten past that, but it was just one of many things that weren't quite compatible on that date.
Emily: Yes. No, I get that. It was a human, not a cute to clarify.
Dedeker: Oh.
Jase: No. If it's a puppy face-looking, I'm totally cool. Puppies listening to this show, I'm all about it. Please hit me up.
Emily: By all means, yes. That's really funny. That's interesting because the two of you immediately went to deal-breakers when you're starting a relationship. We're going to talk about--
Jase: Right. On the first date or something. Yes.
Emily: Yes. Exactly. We are going to talk about that first and then we're going to get into more deal-breakery type questions regarding later on in a relationship or when you've been with the person for a long time, because I guess part of me thinks of deal-breakers as something that might happen later on that you're like, "You know what? That's not a thing that I'm cool with, and I am going to-
Dedeker: Oh, sure.
Emily: -leave now because it is so incompatible or it's a thing that I don't think is okay to have in my life," for instance. Something along those lines.
Dedeker: Oh, yes. I mean I definitely think that people can end up-- a relationship can turn into something they weren't quite bargaining for at the beginning. For various reasons, someone can turn into a jerk or someone can become just really neglectful, or maybe it's not even the other person necessarily being a jerk, but just I don't know, they suddenly express their desire to move across the country and pursue their dream job and either that's not going to work for me or they suddenly were like, "Actually, I do want kids, even though for the last 10 years, I've been saying I don't." All that kind of stuff, I think, happens.
Emily: Yes, absolutely.
Jase: Yes. I guess when I think about those kinds of longer-term things, I don't tend to associate that with the term deal-breaker, even though I guess that the concept is still there. Because for me, it's the deal-breaker. At least where I understand the term that come from is more like we're trying to negotiate a deal in business, and there's some term you have that I just cannot get behind and so to me, it's associated with this early on, "Are we even going to enter into a deal with each other or keep doing this deal-
Dedeker: Interesting.
Jase: -versus--"
Dedeker: Aren't you always wheeling and dealing in relationships-
Emily: That's true.
Jase: Sure.
Emily: Definitely.
Dedeker: -constantly?
Emily: I do think a lot of people tend to view deal-breakers in the beginning of a relationship as something that's happening right at the beginning. I do want to talk about that briefly because I looked out into the Internet and tried to find some wacky deal-breakers and there are a lot out there. I've heard people who really have strict things that they will and will not tolerate when they're dating someone. Some I didn't even want to throw out there, I didn't even want to write them down because they were really not cool and gross and misogynistic.
There were some that I found to have varying degrees of, "Okay, this is understandable too." Really, this is not something that you'd at least be interested in seeing that person again if they did those, but there's nothing wrong with that. I just want to put that out there that if you happen to be a person who understands and is like, "Yes, that's a deal-breaker for me too," there's nothing wrong with that. That's totally fine, but I did want to throw some out that I found to be a little like, "Wow, really that? Okay." Let's talk about some of these. Eating with your mouth open or talking with food in your mouth on a first date.
Jase: Yes. This is interesting because I think this is where we're getting into stuff of like, if you're going on a ton of dates and you're just looking for, "How can I simplify this process?" or "This is something that really bothers me," sure. It's also one of those things of, "Isn't this a behavior that could change?" It's a little different than like, I do or don't want to have kids, for sure, versus manners thing that maybe could change. I don't know. That's some of the questions I have with a lot of these is this idea of what's the difference between, "Oh, I just randomly decided to take this cheeky thing that annoys me to be my deal-breaker," versus, "This is actually really serious and a relationship could not work with this person."
Dedeker: Well, I don't know. It's so hard when we're in a dating culture when everything's based on first impressions. I think everyone comes into a date in a different inner state. Some people can come in and they've been going through a dry spell for years and they're just so desperate and they're on date number 25, first date number 25 after a long string of duds. Then doesn't matter how many red flags the person gives off, they'll like, "Oh, my God. One nice thing, I'm going to go for them," versus someone who I think be coming in an opposite end where it's just like, "Oh, he opened his mouth once when he put a french fry in it. Yes. I expect him to eat his french fries-
Emily: Oh, gosh.
Dedeker: -only with his mouth close somehow, so he's off the table." It makes me think of many years ago when I was more of an active dater that I went on a first date with somebody who-- The date was okay. I was put off because he just talked a lot. Talked a lot about himself in particular, but I was like, "I don't know. I feel I'm at least intrigued enough. Maybe I'll try to go for a second date." Then on the second date, it was fine and I learned-- We ended up dating for a while.
Emily: Interesting.
Dedeker: I learned, in retrospect that he was like, "Yes, I was super nervous on that first date, and so that's what I do when I'm nervous that I just end up talking a lot." By the second date, he was more chill.
Emily: He leveled out a little bit.
Dedeker: In that case, I was like, "Oh, I'm glad that I pushed past maybe that first impression and was at least intrigued enough," but I could see a different timeline where I was just like, "No, not into it. Don't care."
Jase: Yes. "I don't want to deal with this."
Dedeker: "Next."
Emily: Another one that I found is if their date is a mouth breather. I was like, "What? Come on."
Dedeker: When?
Emily: Some people just breathe through their mouths.
Dedeker: What if someone has some sinus issues?
Emily: I know. I agree. I'm like, "What if--"
Jase: Maybe they had a stuffy nose that day. Come on.
Emily: Yes, 100%. Other people wrote not being punctual to a date. That I kind of get. I mean if you're not going to be punctual, then please say something. Please write--
Dedeker: Yes.
Emily: We have devices for such things.
Dedeker: I think I'm not the only one who's experienced this that sometimes-- This is not how it is in reality, but sometimes what it feels like is there's two camps of people. There's the, "I need to plan things" people, and there's the, "I go by the seat of my pants with scheduling" people. I feel like I get that a lot with clients when they're tackling dating of, "Yes, I really want to plan something for next Wednesday," but there are just like, "Oh, I just figure things out the day of." I run into that in dating relationships before and I think that might be a deal-breaker for me.
Emily: Yes. I mean that's an incompatibility for sure potentially. That makes sense. Humor is a big one. If you are somebody that finds that like, "Yes, I have a really specific sense of humor, and then all of a sudden the date doesn't like that humor," that makes sense. That maybe you would be like, "I'm not sure if we match that well."
Dedeker: That brings me back to that specific date that the memory came up for me when you asked about deal breakers where I just feel like this guy was just not following me on the humor. He was like two beats behind. It always would take him a long time to get, and I was just like, "Oh, this is not looking good."
Jase: Yes. Have a different sense of humor, I guess.
Dedeker: Indeed.
Jase: Some of these I think are-- I guess that's the question with the deal breaker, if it's going to be this kind of, "I have this hard and fast deal breaker." I think the spirit of it is, "I want to head off bigger problems later on." With the being late to a date or like the next one we have here is interrupting a lot. It's that deal-- If I see that right away, that's probably an indicator this is something I would deal with later on and that's not something I'm okay with.
Then it does make me think of Dedeker's example of that guy who talked a lot. You might go, "Oof, gosh, this guy is so just full of himself," but it was actually that's how he responded to being nervous. There are some that it's like interrupting a lot. I'd be like, "Maybe that's worth two dates to just make sure that wasn't just a nervousness thing." I guess it depends on the type of interrupting.
Emily: Yes. Absolutely. I think children are definitely a big deal breaker for some people. I saw one person wrote that if their partner or a potential mate had children under the age of four, then that was a no-go. Other people said if their partner had children at all, then that wasn't a thing that they were into.
Jase: One that's not on our list but that I've heard come up within polyamory is having a primary partner already.
Emily: Interesting.
Jase: That's one that I've heard a lot of people whip out again, in the hope of, I'll find partners who, I don't know, are more stable or less likely to want me to be monogamous or something often based on some painful experiences they've had in the past.
.
Dedeker: I've been wanting someone to already have partnership.
Jase: Yes, exactly.
Dedeker: Yes, sure.
Emily: Yes, definitely. I've heard that as well. Somebody else actually who I saw on a Quora website who is in the non-monogamous community, because they're a little bit more well known, wrote, "If somebody is an anxious attachment style, then they won't go out with them." I did not appreciate that one as an anxious attachment, but here we are.
Dedeker: Yes. That might be going a shade too far. I guess I can maybe empathize with and relate to probably what was the messy situation that they experienced with someone that they felt was anxious attached and wanting to avoid that. Also, honestly, I think this is one of the failings of attachment theory is putting us into like four boxes.
Emily: Yes. Good points.
Dedeker: Then we blame all our problems on it or blame our partner's problems on it, and then think that we can avoid those problems ever again by just avoiding those particular people.
Emily: Yes, absolutely. Another one that somebody said that apparently Damona Hoffman told Reader's Digest was a deal breaker for some of her clients is being vegan. Another one that I--
Dedeker: I've seen it on too. I've seen plenty of vegans that are like, "I'm not going to date anyone who's not vegan."
Emily: That's true. Well, I'm already dating someone who's not vegan, so whatever, , but yes, . Also, bigger things like incompatible politics or some people were upset because their partner, they felt as though they weren't anticipating their needs or they expected their needs to be anticipated and that's not really a thing that one can do very easily.
Jase: It's interesting. It's almost like those are two opposite sides of the same thing, right?
Emily: Totally. Yes. They were two different people.
Jase: Yes. They expected me to just know all their needs or they weren't paying attention to mine, which is maybe that same person who said that about the other person.
Emily: . There you go. Very interesting. These are fascinating. I think it's just interesting to look at all of the different things that people will or will not tolerate in a potential partner. I wanted to move on to something that I saw from Esther Perel which got more granular into a thing called a relationship checklist. That takes some of these things, but then writes them out and you might have a checklist where you look and say like, "I want this thing in a person," or "I don't want this other thing in a partner." They're trying to essentially find the perfect mate based on those exact things.
Jase: They have to match these particular criteria. They have to be at least this height, and they have to have this type of job, or this type of dog or whatever. All these very particular things.
Dedeker: Do you think people in reality actually go that vapid with the relationship checklists?
Emily: I don't know.
Dedeker: I'm sure some people do. I'm sure it's not like this is a zero-probability thing. I'm just trying to think of, how does this tend to play out in real life with people?
Emily: Didn't I talk to you, the two of you, about those women on the bus with me as I was going into work in Hong Kong?
Dedeker: Oh, yes.
Emily: I found that to be really interesting because they really very much had this idea of exactly what this person was going to look and be like, essentially. Something that Esther Perel pointed out as well is that if there is a person who's gone through a divorce, that they have this idea in their mind of exactly what it is that they don't want in a partner, because they may have had it previously. Then, again, you can kind of paint yourself into a corner by having all of these things that you decide that you don't want. If you meet someone who has one of those traits, perhaps, then does that automatically mean that you get rid of them?
Jase: Well, yes. I do want to explore Dedeker's question a little bit in that context there too of, what does this look like more realistically? Because sure, there's people, it's like, "Oh, they have to have this color eyes and this color hair and be this tall and whatever." Let's just say right now, those are your standards for who your partner's going to be. You're wrong. Stop doing that. Okay, moving on. Now, what's the more, I guess, sneaky way that this can come in? I think it shows up in areas potentially like they have to already be partnered or married, or not married, or have never been married or things like that.
Again, often coming from a place of, "I dated someone who had been married before, and they just had so much trauma about that divorce that they just couldn't connect with me and it was a miserable experience. I felt like I was constantly chasing after them, and I never want to go through that again. I'm going to kind of set this criteria of like they have to be someone who's never been married." It's coming from a place of, "I want to avoid this painful experience I had before."
I think this is what Esther Perel was getting at when talking about it is this idea that by being overly reliant on this checklist, you box yourself in and maybe you're eliminating some options that would've been good, that could have been great, and possibly even then encouraging yourself to get into relationships with people. You'll have the same problems because you thought, oh, it's because of this thing and it might actually just be personality or just bad luck or bad communication style mismatch or something like that.
Dedeker: Yes. That's an interesting point you bring up, because I think you can see that spirit coming through that so many of these relationship checklists are not necessarily coming from people where it's, "It's my first relationship ever, and this is my ideal person." Often, it comes on the heels of, "These are the ways, these are the painful lessons that I've learned." Again, not that it's all bad, but I know I think about myself over the past year recovering from this big breakup I had at the beginning of last year and really integrating that and trying to think about what does that mean and who was I in that relationship?
Who do I want to be in the next one? What did I learn about partnership or what's compatible with me as far as long-term relationships are concerned? Yes, right on the heels of the breakup when things were the most painful, it was like, "No more straight ever again." That was the problem all along. Now I will say I haven't 100% put that one down. I'm not pinning all of my hopes and dreams and fears and everything on like, "Oh yes, that was the linchpin, that was the main problem." I think I have identified some things where I'm like, "Okay, I think I see some particular core values."
Emily: Attributes.
Dedeker: Yes. Some core values that I really do need to share with a potential partner. I think that's actually a good thing for me to think about going into the future. I think, especially in this past year, I've gone through a whole plethora of different versions of trying to integrate what the end of that relationship meant and what it means for how I seek partners going forward. It's gone from the more vapid and superficial to something a little bit more deeper.
Jase: I think you've hit on something really important there. Is that, on the one hand, we could sit here and look at these things and say, "Hey, don't be so restrictive in who you're trying to match with. Don't limit yourself. Explore, see maybe there's a good partner out there who wouldn't fit this checklist that you have, even if it's an unconscious one.
On the other hand, as Dedeker is bringing up, there is also something to be said for if you notice a pattern of, "I've now been in several relationships where I'm constantly struggling against the fact that these different partners that I've dated are maybe just not very motivated about, I don't know, their work or to keep their house clean. I've constantly been frustrated about this value not matching up. Maybe that is something that I should take more seriously." It's not just to say don't ever have these restrictions, but it's find like, "Okay, sure. No straight white guys."
Maybe really it's about I want to be sure that I'm dating people who aren't quite so ignorant to the privilege that they have or who are willing to be more caring and more aware of how they are affecting the people around them. That just happens to often line up with straight white guys, but that's not necessarily the thing itself. Maybe that does mean prioritize that value and to not keep accepting, "Oh, I'm going to keep putting up with relationships with people who don't treat me very well or who don't think about how they affect others or who aren't aware of how good they have it," or something like that. Yes, it is worth taking those things seriously.
Dedeker: There's a push-pull. There's a constant tension there.
Emily: There is. Absolutely. I did want to just say this one lovely quote from the article that Esther Perel wrote where she says, "Partnership is about navigating inevitably contrasting desires, wants, needs and rhythms. Aligning on values is essential, but from there, find joy and the friction of growing together." I feel like she always wants a little bit of friction. She's cool with that.
Jase: Yes, she does.
Emily: I don't know.
Dedeker: She's really hot. She gets real hot. Look, just a little--
Emily: Just a little spice. A little friction. It's interesting.
Jase: She does seem to come back to that theme of we don't want boring. This is the same every day and I know every--
Emily: Perfectly gelled, perfectly aligned.
Jase: I know everything about my partner. We're always together doing everything. She's very much--
Emily: There is something to that though.
Jase: We can be different people.
Emily: Very much. Absolutely. I think that's why she called a relationship checklist as having an error of a performance review and that if that's just what you're doing initially with a partner or never deciding that you want to be around anyone who doesn't fit that checklist, then yes, where is the tension? Where is the fun in finding someone that surprises you?
Dedeker: It's such a hard task though when it comes to, again, modern-day traditional dating culture-
Emily: Tell me about it.
Dedeker: -because our first impressions are about, do they breathe out of their mouth or not? Sure, maybe we can--
Emily: Well, usually our first impression is just a picture on a website.
Jase: For sure.
Dedeker: Is like, do I find them hot enough based on what beauty standards I've internalized for myself? Maybe this sounds a little bit dismissive, but I do think sometimes we can all put on a show of talking about our values upfront early on in a relationship and, sure, maybe someone professes their values up front and that's exactly who they are 10 years down the line and they put their money where their mouth is and they walk the walk not just talk the talk, but some people do also.
Some people are just, whether intentionally or not, I think profess their values in such a way to make it sound appealing because they want to be liked. I think that is the inherent struggle in just traditional going on dates with people is we don't get a lot of information about who they're going to be in 10 years. Unfortunately, dang it, who thought of this.
Emily: Well, that's understandable though because they don't even know who they are going to be then.
Dedeker: I know, but we want that information about the deep values to know if we're actually compatible there, but we're starting out on this more surface-level plane and have to dig down like archeologists of dinosaurs on dates. I'm going to stop.
Jase: It seems like that's the core of it there is what's the difference between the core value, whether they say it or whether I have to go on enough dates to really observe them living that value? What is this disagreement that Esther Perel talks about of saying part of a relationship is learning how we tolerate disagreements? The Gottman's talk about a lot of relationships have some perpetual problems that you will never see eye to eye on. On the other hand, what are those values that are actually core enough that this is going to be a miserable experience for one, or probably both of us, because we don't align on this? I mean non-monogamy and monogamy is a easy one to go for.
Emily: It's a big one.
Jase: If you have very different values on those two things, no matter how much you love each other and like everything else, this is going to be a painful thing forever for your entire relationship. That's hard to get past something like that. We've talked before about kids, is another one. If one person really wants kids and the other is sure that they don't and you're monogamous and that's the way you're structuring your relationship, there's not really a way this is going to go well without one of you living a life that's not the life you want.
That's pretty serious. Those are easy ones, but the ones that are a little harder to tell are those more subtle values about how do you live in the world, how do you treat your partner, how do you treat other people, how do you approach your job, how do you live in your house, how clean are you? Those things, it's like trying to find where on this threshold does that fit. Is that kind of, "We're incompatible," or is this just, "Okay, I could learn to have a disagreement about this and still have a good life with this person."?
Dedeker: It can be so subtle and so tricky and so different for everyone because to take the punctuality example, for someone it may just be like, "That's annoying. Oh, my God. They're always 15 minutes late. They can't get it together. Oh my goodness." Like, "Yes, it annoys me and I wish that they were more on time, but it's okay. I still love them, they still love me. I know they're not doing it on purpose or whatever," versus for somebody it could be like, "This constantly feels disrespectful," and that gets more to that core stuff where--
Emily: I have been disrespected in this way before and so the history of my life is such that I simply can't tolerate this anymore.
Dedeker: I think the same thing with cleanliness of a house. That it can be like, "Yes, it's annoying. They don't rinse out their coffee mug or whatever sometimes, but it's okay, whatever. It's not a big deal for me to just do it," versus this person--
Jase: I'm imagining the next 15 years of my life cleaning up after this person and hating it.
Dedeker: Exactly. This person never seeing the impact that it has on me or never caring about the fact that I'm running ragged from work and then still have to clean up. It is on a spectrum, I think, where for some people it can be, "Sure, it's annoying, but it's okay," all the way to the end of like, "No, this is really not okay." I don't think one of those is right or wrong, it's just different.
Emily: I feel like the two of you are perhaps jumping the gun a touch just because I did want to talk about this more and a little bit regarding perpetual problems, annoyances, especially those that happen over a long period of time. All of this is great conversation, but before we do all that, let's take a quick break.
Jase: If you love this content and appreciate getting all of this to everyone out there in the world for free on their podcast machines, we would love your support. The easiest way to do that is to just take the time to listen to our advertisers and if any sound interesting to you, go check them out. Also, look into things like our Patreon community and things like that. It really does directly support our show when you check out our sponsors or our Patreon.
Emily: We're back. Now, I'm fascinated by this podcast episode of the Ezra Klein podcast that had Dan Savage on it pretty recently. This is what got me interested in this topic period, just talking about deal breakers, talking about what it is that irks us and that is okay or not okay in a relationship. Dan Savage talked about many, many things on that episode of the Ezra Klein podcast. I really hope that at some point we can have him on the show or be on his show or something because I do think that some of our values align. It would be interesting to talk to someone who's been immersed in this community for so long. Additionally, there was one thing that struck me that I was fascinated to talk to the two of you about, and that was his concept of the price of admission. Have the two of you heard about this before today?
Jase: I have, but not in the context of Dan Savage, to be honest.
Emily: Oh, interesting. He talked about it first in 2010 on a YouTube video. I listened to the video. It was really good. He had a lot of things to say on it. Essentially, he was discussing his partner and how his partner does some things that are annoying to him. For instance, he'll make a sandwich and then he'll leave all of the sandwich materials out in the hot 90-degree sun essentially and not put them back.
Dedeker: That's a deal-breaker. I’m out.
Emily: Not for, yeah I know. And Dan Savage also was like, "This is bullshit. I'm so pissed about this." He would be yelling at his partner about it, like, "Why haven't you put this away? Why haven't you done that? Put all of these things away." Then he realized one day it takes 10 seconds for me to just put it away, whatever. Yes, I hate this about him. I don't like the fact that he does this, but it's just kind of the price of admission for being with this guy. The two of you already are like--
Dedeker: Also, can I point out?
Emily: Yes.
Dedeker: Also, can I point out that he's in a relationship with another man which has its own dynamics to it, which is maybe a little bit different from relationships between straight men and women, which carry with it different gender dynamics as far as who's responsible to stop thinking about the sandwich as soon as they get what they want, and who's responsible to think about the logistics of our home and making sure it doesn't smell and that our sandwich supplies don't go stinky and rotten in the sun, so I better put them away.
Emily: He did talk about that a bit.
Dedeker: That tends to fall along particular lines.
Emily: Yes, he did talk about that a bit, for sure, and that heterosexual relationships in general are probably harder just because there are things--
Dedeker: He's been on that route for years.
Emily: Yes, absolutely. Jase, you had something to say as well.
Jase: No, I was going to say that the gender thing Dedeker brought up absolutely because this could be a sign of some bigger things, value mismatches, like we talked about before. I was also going to say that even without the gender part of it, there is that thing of, sure, takes me 10 seconds to clean it up. My question is, is it only in this one situation where this behavior happens, or is this just one particular thing that bugs you, but actually, this is part of a much bigger pattern of lack of consideration or lack of willingness to try to change a behavior that's upsetting to my partner or that inconveniences them and they're having to do work for me?
To me, it raises that question. If Danny Boy were my client and we were having a session or something, those would be some of the questions I would be wanting to get at. It's all well and good to say maybe that is just-- okay, this is my price of admission, and it sounds like it is for him. My question for someone else would be, is it just this? Because sure, if it's like 10 seconds once a day to put away their sandwich making is fine. If it's 10 seconds many, many times a day in many areas of my life constantly, that's a bigger problem I think.
Emily: Yes. I do get that. I think one of his big takeaways in speaking about this is that everyone has a price of admission. Even if you can't see it internally about yourself, you have one too, and that your partner or partners have to give you that grace, for lack of a better word, while you do the same thing to them. We talked a lot about first dates at the beginning, and I didn't want to say anything until this moment just simply because I think so many of us tend to put our best foot forward on a first date.
We want to look and act and feel and sound like we're the most heightened, wonderful versions of ourselves. That often is what our partners initially fall in love with. Then as they get to know us, especially if they live with us or if it's over a long period of time, we are not that person anymore. We're a diminished version of that to a degree and that's something that he talks about and that every-- you don't think you get hotter and cooler over time? I would like to think that parts of me are hotter and cooler, but parts of me are older and less hot, probably.
Jase: I will just say personally in my relationships with the two of you, I think you've both gotten cooler and more fun.
Emily: Oh, thanks.
Jase: There's parts of you that you did not present at first that I've gotten to know over many years that I like much better than the original version.
Emily: That's true. There's also annoying shit that I do because it's--
Jase: For sure, you both annoy me too.
Emily: Yes, of course. Likewise. That's the thing though. I think what he's getting at and something to just be aware of is that we all have our shit.
Jase: Yes, that's the point.
Emily: That's part of being in a relationship with someone. You can't change a person in a relationship and you have to take ownership also for deciding, I'm going to put up with this every day or I'm not, and not necessarily bitch and moan about it. I'm saying that to myself because I'm fucking the queen of bitching and moaning, especially to the two of you. If I'm going to be in relationship or friendship or whatever with the person, I also have to know I'm choosing every day to do that.
Dedeker: Sure. I think we can extrapolate it to that. I think the way I heard someone put it once is that when we choose a partner, we're just choosing which set of problems we want to deal with. It feels like it's sort of this in-between ground where I'm of the opinion that if you want a different set of problems, I think that's fine. If it's like, yes, my partner doesn't clean up after themselves and their in-laws or my in-laws, their family doesn't treat me well, and we've never really seen eye to eye on this particular topic or whatever.
Maybe that all adds up to be enough for you where you can accept, I know maybe there's not a super perfect partner out there for me, but I think I'd rather take a different set of imperfections from these ones. These are just sapping my energy and my life force and my happiness just enough. Versus I think that probably what Danny Boy is speaking to here is this idea that in relationships, maybe we can be annoyed with our partner and maybe have this fantasy that like, "Oh, I haven't found the right one yet. I haven't found the perfect one yet."
Emily: That perfection doesn't exist.
Dedeker: I can go out and find the perfect one. Yes, that the perfection doesn't exist. I think it is okay. I think just what I worry is I don't want anyone to just feel like none of my complaints or annoyances in relationship matter because everyone is going to be equally as annoying to me and I'm like, "That's not the case."
Emily: Yes. I'm not simply saying that.
Dedeker: People are going to be annoying to you. Not all equally annoying to you.
Emily: Sure, that's a good point.
Jase: Again, I think that when you want to have popular YouTube videos, you got to take a hard stand on things. That's why we're not as popular I guess because we're always trying to find the middle path here.
Emily: That should have been our podcast name, the middle path.
Jase: You're right.
Dedeker: The middle path, the boring--
Emily: Multi-hammering middle path.
Jase: Multi-hammering calling the most boring AF--
Dedeker: Boring AF. Boring relationship show you've ever listened.
Emily: Oh, gosh.
Jase: Oh, gosh. Hold on. What I was actually trying to say, though, is that yes, I think that what Dan Savage and then also Esther Perel, from what we were reading earlier, what they're both reacting to are seeing people just kind of being unwilling to see the flaws on someone else and to continue to accept that or to learn to communicate with someone who views the world different from the way that they do. That's what they're reacting to by coming down more on this side of, "Hey, no, actually, you should learn to get along with people that you don't always agree with, or this is just the price of admission. You've got your own shit, too."
I think that if I were talking to someone who I saw doing that, I'd be saying these exact same things. I think some of this is great. From Dan's video in 2010, he said, "The things you aren't willing to put up with, you should be able to count on one hand, and they can't be bullshit." That's what we were saying in the first half of this. It shouldn't be all these little nitpicky things, but more, what are the core values that really matter, and they can't be bullshit.
On the other hand, if I was talking to someone and saw them constantly putting up with having to do a lot more of the emotional labor in their relationship or the actual physical labor of keeping their house put together or just for letting themself get taken advantage of because they feel like, "Oh, well, that just what I have to do to have a relationship."
I might come down on the other side and encourage them to have more of these.
That's what we mean about trying to find this middle path of where's the line between, "I'm cutting people out of my life over things that just no one's going to be perfect," versus "Am I accepting not being treated well?" Or your partner doesn't even have to be bad, but am I accepting being in a relationship that's really not a very good compatible one just because I think, "Oh, well, that's just what I have to put up with?" There's a balance to be found there.
Dedeker: I think it falls in line with a lot of-- sometimes there's an inherent, I don't want to call it a contradiction necessarily, but I'll go back to that idea of tension or a push-pull. Because I think this falls under this umbrella of, on the one hand, relationships are work. They're not always easy. They don't always feel good. You got to put in effort. Also, on the other hand, relationships should be a drag. It shouldn't be like pulling teeth, and it shouldn't be just like, tiring you out or miserable. Both of those things can seem contradictory, and yet I think they're both true at the same time
Jase: We always want the quick, easy rule of like, just follow this rule and that's been five deal breakers then you're okay. We always want it to be easy, but it's not.
Emily: To close us out here, I did want to talk about those perpetual problems and gridlocked problems versus solvable problems and ask the question of how does one figure out what is maybe just the price of admission versus one of these things that may be a relationship ender or relationship changer at the very least? We talked about solvable and perpetual problems in our upcoming book when we were talking about a repair shop, which you can go back and listen to that episode. I used the word history earlier. I think that comes down to a lot of these problems that tend to happen is our internal history, our history with them in relation to our partner, and exactly what that means for the relationship and if it is something that can be solved or not. Can you do a little refresher?
Jase: Yes. Let's refresh first before we go into it.
Dedeker: Yes, sure. I feel like we cite this research all the time that came out of the Gottman Institute. The way they tend to think about it is that, according to them, their numbers is 69% nice of all relationship conflict is about perpetual problems versus solvable problems. Their examples, it might be something like, "Hey, we really need to get on a schedule to go to the grocery store," says person A. Person B is like, "Yes, I know, but things have been really busy at work, I don't know about this."
Person A is like, "I don't know, this is really important to me. We got to figure out how to go to the grocery store." Person B is like, "Okay, well I think we should do the schedule." Person A is like, "I don't know about that schedule. What if we do this schedule?" Technically we're in conflict. Technically we're disagreeing. Technically there's a problem. At the end of that conflict, there can be a clear solution. It's like, "Okay, we've decided we're going to do this schedule for going to the grocery store more frequently or on a regular schedule. We're going to try this."
There it is. Problem solves or at least we've put something in place that we're going to try versus the perpetual problems which falls under some of the purview of what we've been talking about of do we have kids? If we have kids, how do we discipline or parent our kids? What religious beliefs are we going to teach to our kids? What's our format of relationship? Are we monogamous? Are we not monogamous? What are going to be our retirement goals? How do I handle the fact that we're non-monogamous and my partner has a different sexual risk tolerance than I do?
How do we deal with the fact that I prefer to stay home on a Saturday night and you want to go out on a Saturday night? These things where it often comes down to your personalities sometimes are these really strong preferences where, again, with the kids' thing, if I don't really want to have kids and my partner does, there isn't a solution to that necessarily of like, "Well, we'll just have half a kid or just you will have a kid." Again, of course, there's all kinds of different fantastic polyamorous, non-monogamous relationship anarchist arrangements, but I'm talking about most people in traditional relationships. That's what we're talking about with these perpetual problems versus solvable problems.
Jase: That's something to understand there, too, is that it's unique to each person. It's not like this type of problem's always a perpetual one and this type is solvable. Something that's a solvable problem of, "Oh yes, let's just figure out how we want to organize cleaning our house and splitting up chores." Great, solved. Done. For another couple, that same disagreement could be something that we never see eye to eye on, but this doesn't mean that it's always going to be miserable. That is something I find with the way Gottman's categorized these of solvable and perpetual problems. I think sometimes sets up this expectation that if we have this perpetual one, this is always going to suck as much as it does right now, for example. That's not the case.
Emily: Yes. That's not the case.
Jase: They talk a lot about ways to do that. That's what our repair shop is based on, is that idea of, how do we better understand each other and that even though we'll never get to the same level of having the same values of this thing, we can hopefully--
Emily: Understand each other.
Jase: -find a way to make this work for us and maybe we can't. Maybe that is the deal breaker then. I did want to clarify that at least. It's not to say that 69% of your relationship conflicts are always going to suck as much as they do right now.
Emily: The difference I think lies in when as the Gottman say perpetual problem becomes gridlocked and it becomes a thing that's really difficult to speak about to your partner, that when you do talk about it, when you do try to come to some agreement or some understanding, it just gets really bogged down by all of the emotion that comes up in speaking about that problem. I think that that's what we're trying to get away from here, especially when we're talking about repair shop or things along those lines. If we're trying to figure out what is the price of admission versus what is something that may cause a relationship to maybe eventually end or not being as fun and awesome as you want it to be.
Dedeker: Well, maybe one of the advantages of being non-monogamous is having a lot of experience in many different types of relationships, many different types of people. I feel like I've had talks about things like money with many different partners in the past or talks about with cohabitating partners. How do we keep the house clean many times in the past? I feel like I've had a lot of experiences along that spectrum of some relationships where it's like, "This isn't a problem at all, very easy to solve."
Some relationships where it's like, "No, this is a source of conflict and we can't even speak about it without it just falling apart." It does feel there is something deeper there around, how are the two of us able to communicate? Some of it can be values stuff like some of it comes down to fundamentals like we're just too different on the topic of money or we're just too different on the topic of what we want in a home or how we want to keep a home clean or things like that.
In that middle ground, I think in my experience, it has come down to, can we communicate in a gentle, loving, compassionate way? Can we make an effort to understand each other? Are we willing to try experiments? Are we willing to try to meet in the middle and try things on? I feel like that's what's turned these "perpetual problems" into something that doesn't suck as much that maybe turns it into more of a passing annoyance rather than I'm envisioning the next 50 years of my life having to deal with this.
Jase: I just love coming back to that idea that for some people, that perpetual problem, we can get past that, and for others we can't. With the monogamy and polyamory difference even. For some people, they find a monopoly-type relationship that does actually make them both happy. For a lot of people, they try and try and try to make it work and it's miserable. Then eventually, it has to end, or one person just stays miserable forever. It's definitely worth really spending some time thinking about those things.
Let's move into our takeaways section for this episode. Basically, to recap some of the stuff we've been talking about is having an idea of what you want in a partner is great, but be careful about limiting yourself too much to what you think might be causing the issue that might not actually be the core of the issue because you might be eliminating people that could be a great match for you and that some things that you thought you wanted in a partner might actually turn out to be things you dislike in a partner or it could go the opposite way as well or this thing that I thought I would never date someone who would do this actually become something endearing and that I've learned to love myself.
Dedeker: It's good to remember that there are certain things in a relationship that may never change and that's okay. Remember that we are limited in which problems are actually solvable versus not. Some of these unsolved problems may be annoying. They could also be part of this price of admission to being in a relationship. If you still feel like you can fundamentally love and accept your partner, if you feel like they still fundamentally love and accept you, if you still feel like the two of you can actually communicate, then maybe this is just the price of admission.
Emily: Also, something that came up in a blog that I read about the price of admission was that that idea, that concept can help in ways other than just romantic relationships. For example, if you are looking at a job and you got a job offer, but the job is 45 minutes away from your home, so you're going to have to have a long commute every single day. You can think about, is that just the price of admission for that job, or is that something that's a deal breaker for me? Ultimately, a place that I don't want to have to drive to for that long and take that long out of my day every single day to do. Also, you can think about friendships. Am I finding myself really emotionally or mentally preparing to go see a person? Is that just because, hey, they're a little bit intense and that's the price of admission to being around them, or is that a thing that's a big deal breaker for me and I don't really want to have to deal with that in my life anymore? Also, in activities, various things, I tend to say yes, and I've talked about in the show. I tend to say yes to so many things, even if it's not necessarily something that I really want to do, because I don't want to let people down.
Do you really want to do that thing? Is that, "Hey, I'm getting to take a bid and be around a person that I care about, or is it not worth it to me because this is really not a place that I want to go for an hour of my time every week," or something along those lines? There's a variety of ways that you can use this concept and really think about, is this worth my time and my effort and everything that I may need to put into this thing that I'm doing, or should I not be doing that?
Jase: I always encourage people to look for the patterns, too. It's one thing to say, "All right, I'll go with my partner to see a band or a friend to see this band." They're like, "I'm on going to see shows," but they love it. That's great. Versus every time we're hanging out, we're doing stuff that I'm just like, "I really would rather not do that. I guess I have to because they want to hang out with this person." That's maybe an indicator that this is a more significant issue that needs to be addressed or potentially needs to change the shape of that relationship, whether that's a friend or a partner or whatever.
One helpful resource for determining that is talking to a therapist or potentially a trusted friend. Again, with both of those, it's hard because they might have their own biases coming in, especially if your friend is also friends with this other person. They might have their own different relationship with them that colors how they're going to answer you. A therapist or a counselor or a coach can be a nice resource because they're removed from your social group and your situations. You can hopefully be a little bit more objective there. Just really consider, is this a price of admission that I'm willing to pay?
If you're not, that doesn't mean they're a bad person. You don't have to say, "Oh, they're a horrible person and that's why I'm not hanging out with them as often," or, "That's why I'm deescalating our relationship," or "That's why I'm breaking up with this person." They could be perfectly great for someone else and let them have that relationship and let you have one that is perfectly great for you as well. While realizing that maybe it is worth the price of admission and maybe this is okay and maybe I could stop about this quite so much.
Maybe that will make me happier to just realize, "You know what? sure. I'm going to accept that we disagree on this thing and hopefully, we can find a good way to communicate that and get out of that gridlock if we do have that." That's where things like seeing a therapist or a counselor together could be really helpful. Also, things like radar of having that monthly check-in because this isn't going to be solved in one talk.
This is something that's going to take some time of rebuilding that connection and understanding each other and deciding how to move forward. Something like radar, checking in regularly, and using something like our repair shop for how to reconnect after you've had that disconnect and things have gotten very emotional and intense. Potentially even combine the two. Use the repair shop structure within a radar, for example, to work on something that you've seen come up several times in the last month, for example.