• Home
• Login/Register
• 
  
• 
  Our Services
  
• Personal Coaching
• Relationship Coaching
• Teleclasses & Events
• Products
• Complimentary Session
• About Dr. Janice
• Testimonials
• 
  
• 
  Get Your Love Right!
  
• Blog
• Articles
• Q's & A's
• Archives Index
• e-Newsletter Signup
• 
  
• 
  Other Destinations
  
• Message Boards
• Reviews
• News
• Contact Us
• Recommend Us
• Affiliations & Links
• Banners
• AvantGo

It isn't much of a stretch to see how this aspect of professional car racing can help explain some important aspects of dating, since singles are told to look out for "red flags" while following a dating "road map" and navigating relationship "curves and obstacles."

In auto racing, flags are used to inform all drivers of the general status of a race. A solid green flag is usually displayed to indicate the start of a race. If a race is not under caution or delayed, it is said to be under "green-flag" conditions. The solid yellow flag, or caution flag, requires drivers to slow down due to a hazard on, or off, the track. The checkered flag is the most famous flag in auto racing -- it invariably indicates that a driver has completed, and won, the race.

But it's the solid red flag that is referred to the most when racing analogies are made to dating. In auto racing, the red flag is displayed when track conditions are considered too unsafe to continue the race. Heeding the red flag is necessary in order to prevent serious car accidents or injuries to the racers. In dating, a "red flag" is defined as a behavior you observe or experience in your dating partner that warns you of a problem area in the relationship, or about the other person.

While chemistry and physical appearance often form the basis for initial attraction in relationships, determining if chemistry exists doesn't necessarily require asking many questions. Yet many singles believe that if they have chemistry with their dating partner, then everything else is either not necessary to talk about or "will just fall into place." Here's an example --

Mike, age 26, met Paula, age 30, on an online dating website. Mike was smitten with Paula, a petite, slim, friendly blond, and Paula was impressed with Mike's maturity and "decency." Paula was pretty sure after their second date that she didn't want to go out with Mike again, telling him she felt a lack in their connection. Mike convinced her to go out with him again nonetheless, claiming that since they had chemistry, their relationship had potential. Paula couldn't find the words to dispute this, so she agreed to dinner.

It was during this 3rd date that Mike noticed how Paula became disinterested in him and eventually started reacting angrily towards him. Mike picked up on this and chose to build on their chemistry by touching and kissing Paula reassuringly. This did not help the situation, and after spending time in the bathroom avoiding him, Paula insisted Mike take her home.

Unfortunately, many singles will make their lists of personal preferences their only criteria for selecting a life partner. As I frequently point out, psychological literature indicates that people usually say what they mean, and that the best way to predict someone's behavior is by listening to what they say (and, by extension, what they write in their online dating profiles). In light of this reality, I make sure to tell singles that they have to accept people at face value.

Even though you may disagree with a 60-year-old man wanting a wife in her 20's, or the 5'1" woman wanting only to date men 5'8" and over, you have to accept the reality that neither will change. Even if you believe that you could be their perfect match, you ultimately have to take them at face value (believe that they said what they mean) and move on. Looking at the bigger picture, however, I believe that today's singles have the particular challenge of constantly comparing their dates, and themselves, with the media-created stereotypes of who is deemed desirable and acceptable, and who is not.

Few topics are as volatile in a relationship as discussions pertaining to money, which ranks right up there with discussions about sex. That's because the attitudes and feelings we have about money are deep-seated, strongly reflecting one's values and expectations about life.

The subject of money came to my attention a few months ago when I was sent the article, "Nine questions partners should ask each other before getting married," by John Opdyke, from the Wall Street Journal's "Love and Money" column (March 29, 2006). I featured the article in my blog entry, "Talking About Money Shouldn't Be Taboo," and offered copies of the article to those requesting it. I then received this question from someone in response:

"Dear Dr. Janice, What do you have to say about how to deal with money with a partner... I'm dating a guy who when we were living together he cheated on me and I put him out. We have since then gotten back together to save the relationship (talking about marriage). He has gotten his own place (renting a house) but of late can't manage his finances. He states he wants a partner to support each other financially, but he is the one who always wants monetary help. I've given him a substantial amount of money of which he as not repaid. The last time he asked, I said no, now he states he doesn't want a partner who doesn't support his financial pitfalls. My position is that when dating, each person should be able to stand independently financially. Am I wrong to think this way or should I give in after all we are trying to become one.

"Some other factors to consider: My finances are double his, I have one child, 24, never married. He has been married for 13 years with three kids, age 10, 16, and 23. I need help. Lisa."

The Doctor Says. . .The description of your boyfriend's behaviors in your relationship demonstrates how his attitudes and feelings about money are consistent with, and can even predict, his needs and expectations for a life partner relationship.

While my article focused mainly on the more common aspects of commitment phobia, specifically the fear of the unknown, or the fear of repeating a painful past experience, someone asked me if fearing what might have to be given up, or lost, would constitute commitment phobia. I.e., fearing the loss of one's independence. So I thought I would briefly address this question (but without stating it as the "last word").

Recalling my definition of "commitment phobia" as "an unrealistic fear of making a promise, a pledge or a vow to be a faithful and loyal partner to another person," many singles fear that commiting to be a life-long relationship challenges the safety and comfort they perceive as a benefit of being single. Remaining single does have its advantages. You can come and go as you please, leave your dirty clothes or dirty dishes alone for as long as you want, and spend your time and money independently. And, you can choose to reveal to the world whatever parts of yourself you want to reveal, and keep your weaknesses and vulnerabilities hidden.

In most contexts, our fears are designed to keep us away from dangerous situations. It's healthy and normal to fear snakes, loud noises and bad smells, and we protect ourselves by running away from them. But in order to create a trusting and intimate relationship with a partner, one has to confront fears and take emotional risks. . . .

This is the point in relationships when I frequently hear a lot of complaints, such as "She's worried about being only with me," or "He's got 'commitment phobia'." The term "commitment phobia" is a rather new addition to the English language. The original use of the term "phobia" comes from classical psychoanalysis, and is defined as "an obsessive, persistent, unrealistic intense fear of an object or situation." Common phobias are acrophobia, the fear of heights; claustrophobia, the fear of closed spaces; and agoraphobia, fear of open spaces. These unrealistic fears are thought to stem from "the displacement of an internal (unconscious) conflict to an external object symbolically related to the conflict." (A Psychiatric Glossary, Fourth Revised Edition, American Psychiatric Association.)

However, modern behavioral psychologists say phobias result from painful and/or traumatic events. For example, being stuck in a crowded elevator or subway train for a long period of time can cause phobic (fearful) reactions to, and avoidance of, elevators and subways, i.e., claustrophobia, in the future.

Defining the term "commitment" is a bit easier. It is a promise, a pledge or a vow. Making a commitment or a promise is essential when pursuing a goal. For example, an athlete wanting to win a gold medal in the Olympics must make a commitment to do everything it takes to win. As it pertains to the goal of creating a life partner relationship however, the commitment requires being loyal, trustworthy and faithful to another person.

Sure, you say you have to be with someone who values punctuality as much as you because you've worked so hard on it. And all of those little piles in your apartment? Well, you've developed an intricate system that keeps them from growing any bigger. So how could you be with someone who doesn't make these same things as much of a priority?

The truth is, everyone has limitations that have to be dealt with. We manage our "inner slob" by working hard to keep clutter at bay and maintaining our organization strategies. We control our "inner grouch" by not showing our irritation when confronted with inattentive waiters or careless drivers. So why does it make someone else "rejectable" if they aren't as on top of their own inner slob or inner grouch as you?

I believe that the problem is actually about the acceptance and tolerance of one's own imperfections and limitations. That's right. I say "one's own" because that's what this is really about -- not accepting your own inner slob or grouch to the extent that it's actually okay for someone else to be messy or grouchy. Rejecting someone on the basis of these little things is especially harmful when the man or woman you're dating happens to be a kind, considerate, generous, honest, and trustworthy person. And you're rejecting him because he gets impatient with a slow cashier? Or ending the relationship because she's always losing her keys?

It is a common experience among singles to confront life factors that can conflict with the love they have for a dating partner, thus forcing them to decide what compromises, or "trade-offs," to make in order to make theirs a relationship that lasts. As I presented in Part 1, a life partnership becomes, in essence, a "deal" created between two people, requiring negotiation and agreement on a number of important life issues. So the ability to live with the one you love indeed becomes "a big deal."

Karen and Henry each faced the dilemma of how to move their relationships forward towards commitment. Here's how they identified the trade-offs and deal-breakers in their relationships, and went about cutting the best deal.

Karen's dissatisfaction in her relationship with Gary motivated her to solve the problem by addressing it directly. She told Gary that she loved him and wanted to spend more time together, and Gary said he felt the same way. She then suggested that they make a schedule for being together, similar to one he uses for visiting his son. Gary responded by telling Karen that he felt she was pressuring him. He said he was doing the best he could. She explained how she supported his business and parenting endeavors, but needed more time alone with him in order to continue in the relationship. Gary said his needs were to be with Karen as much as possible too, but he could not guarantee that he could stick to a schedule.

Karen noticed that Gary perceived her as a nag, which was clearly not an outcome she wanted.

Shifting the love you experience with someone into a healthy, committed relationship is often more challenging than we would want it to be. After all, once you find someone to love, shouldn't the rest just fall into place? The answer, unfortunately, is "no."

A life partnership is, in essence, a "deal" created between two people requiring negotiation and agreement on a number of important life issues. Therefore, being able to live with the one you love indeed becomes a "big deal." I have seen singles struggle in their relationships when confronted with life factors that challenge their love for one another. "Cutting a deal" is the phrase I use to describe the process of reconciling what you're getting and not getting in a relationship. Compromises, or "trade-offs" are frequently necessary when cutting a deal. But if there are too many trade-offs, they can become "deal-breakers" -- reasons for ending the negotiations and, ultimately, the relationship.