The Great Expectation: "It's not me, it's you."

For those well-versed in relational psychology, Esther Perel is a familiar name and voice of reason. Perel is a therapist, author, and podcast host offering insightful perspectives on navigating romantic relationships for today’s couples. In Mating in Captivity, Perel points out that too much is expectation is placed on modern day, monogamous relationships. For Perel, people tend to believe that their partner is supposed to be their everything—their best friend, their lover, their therapist, and the parent to their child. It is important to note that Perel’s theory centres on monogamous, marital relationships, and how this type of relationship no longer proves valid.

Marriage and its role in society has evolved over time. Women relied on marriage when they were barred from the public sphere as men were essential for economic and social stability. However, as women began to occupy greater space outside of the home, marriage was no longer critical for survival purposes. Accordingly, the colloquial "Until death do us part" lost its literal significance over the last hundred years. While marriage was once a transactional relationship for survival between two people, and a lifelong promise rooted in religious scripture, contemporary marriage becomes more provisional in its nature.

Today’s marriages are not like historical marriages. Women do not require marriage to find purpose inside or outside of the home. Indeed, women do not require marriage to have children; some women may choose to have children on their own by way of IVF while others may wish to have children with a romantic partner. In either case, today’s women have greater control over their lives.

However, there is a tendency to misconstrue Perel’s theory and her discussion on monogamy, marriage, and marital expectations. Remember, Perel’s theory pertains only to monogamous marriage. In Perel’s work, she describes one partner expecting 'too much' from their spouse. When the partner's expectations are not fulfilled by their spouse, disappointment, emotional pain, and separation likely follows. This is not surprising. We’ve grown up with novels and fairy-tales describing great love stories that promise eternal, monogamous, legal bonds between two people. Thus, it’s not surprising that Perel’s theory appeals to those experiencing relationship challenges with a partner, or a ‘partner’. The quotations are significant. I put ‘partner’ in quotations to describe the quasi-boyfriend; a non-committed relationship between two people who either fear commitment or fear losing the other in attempt to establish commitment. To those women unhappy in similar quasi-relationships, make no mistake: this man does not like you, nor does he respect you. This man simply keeps you in his orbit because it is convenient for him. And why would he change? He enjoys all the benefits of a relationship both physically and emotionally without the monogamous restriction.

Last week, I spoke with a close friend about Perel's theory and how it pertains to today's dating scene. She assured me that Perel's theory explains why she is dissatisfied in her relationship (re: situationship); she assured me that her expectations were the problem. My jaw dropped. How could her expectations be the problem, I asked. "We expect our partners to fulfil too many roles in our lives," she replied. It was then that I realised that women in this familiar situation tend to believe that they are the problem. Their expectations are the problem. Their desire for more than a late-night booty call is the problem. Women genuinely believe that if they expect less from men, they will be more satisfied long-term. I find this almost comical. And yet, it painfully summarises what it means to be a woman in today's dating scene. In this conversation, my friend used Perel's theory to justify her rationale so as to assure me that she was the problem; her desire for more from this man was the problem. This couldn't be further from the truth, I replied.

Whether you’ve been in this situation, or supported a friend going through a similar experience, the end is inevitable—it’s only a matter of time. In my last relationship, I was dating a guy who seemingly checked all the boxes: kind, handsome, funny, etc. However, our relationship ultimately ended because we wanted different things. As a naturally monogamous person, I have trouble simultaneously dating multiple people. He felt otherwise. That is not to say that non-monogamy is better or worse than monogamy; they're completely different and should be approached as such. However, I use this experience to note that I speak from a personal vantage point. Reflecting on this short-lived relationship, I now realise that I adjusted my own expectations to justify my ex-partner's behaviour. I described his fear of commitment as a product of the distance between us and the reality given his ‘time of life’. In retrospect, I see his lack of commitment for what it was: he did not want to be with me. And yet, I continued to convince myself that my unhappiness was a product of my own creation and the natural consequence of expecting too much from someone. It wasn’t until I moved on from this relationship when I realised that my expectations were not the problem. But, in fact, my expectations were never the problem. I thought that if I did more, he might actually change his mind. I believed that if I cared less then he would care more. It was only once I realised that I had lowered my expectations to validate his behaviour that I realised how low my expectations had really become; I had unconsciously enabled him to treat me like this because I accepted this kind of treatment. I willingly accepted less than what I wanted and needed. This man, as kind and handsome and funny as he was, did not meet my expectations because he chose not to.

As women living in societies built by and for men, it is important to recognise how our expectations differ between men and women. We (women) are taught to expect less from romantic relationships with men—a strategy used to invalidate women by putting their emotional experience secondary to that of men. Indeed, in my own experience, it was not me, it was him. It was always him. There was not one thing that I could do to sway his desire. In fact, I was no longer willing to sway his desire. I realised that my expectations were set high for one reason: It is a privilege to receive my love. And so, instead of staying one more night and entertaining the idea of a future with this man, I chose to leave. And, if you have any doubts as to whether your expectations are the problem, then you probably should leave too.