Discussion...can relationships work just as well/better without the 'honeymoon phase'

[aliceb1987]

My last boyfriend (of 2 years) was the only person i have had 'the honeymoon period' with.It felt like what you see in the movies and read in books...for the first few months we were all over each other and i was high as a kite on love.

 

The trouble was...it was all a facade.We were not compatible in fundamental ways,but because of the intensity of the first few months,constant physical affection,sweet talk etc,i was so swept up in the 'love' that i was unable to be objective.Thereafter followed a very dysfunctional relationship...the 'perfect moments' were still there,but they became less heartfelt over time,the romantic messages/gestures began to lose their meaning and fights,anger and upset became commonplace.

 

Whilst i am glad i got to experience that 'head over heels' feeling with someone,i am debating whether a more grounded approach is actually healthier in the long run....especially the older you are.

 

I am currently seeing a very self-assured guy,who is not really into romance,very 'what you see is what you get' and has laid his true personality out on the table from day one and behaves around me the same as he does anyone else.Whilst this could be seen as a negative...could it actually be a positive in the long run...starting as you mean to go on?

 

Please share your experiences and opinions!

[iKING]

This is the way I look at it, the more you leave to be said/done, the more there is to be said/do later on. If you do and say absolutely everything in the first month or two, there's not much left to do.

 

It can be very easy to get swept up in the heat of the moment, but I try to restrain myself and go from a more grounded approach based on long-term compatibility, lifestyle similarities, etc. It seems to work out better that way.

[ThaWholigan]

Everyone's relationship cycle is different - maybe your "honeymoon" phase happens later, however it turns out to be.

[Eggplant]

I also fell head-over-heels for a man. I was so high, I ignored the red flags. Awful pain to realize that I cannot be with him.

 

Now I am dating again. I still want to fall in love and be high, but I am not getting too close with anybody until I get to know them objectively. That said, once I feel okay objectively, caution to the wind, I'll go all in again. The rest of my (hopefully decades-long) relationship, I need that honeymoon foundation to go back to and reignite.

[man_in_the_box]

Just as fine from my personal experience. Is it better? I don't think so. Just 'different', but it works pretty okay. But I suppose its highly personal.

[Weezy1973]

I think if you're looking for a "rest of my life" relationship it can work with or without the intense infatuation period. The reason it didn't work for you was because you weren't compatible - not because there was a honeymoon phase.

 

If you're looking long term, focusing on qualities that would lend itself to a long term relationship (i.e. compatible values, open and honest communication, and ability to compromise) rather than a short term romance (i.e. sex appeal, intense 'chemistry' etc.) would be beneficial. I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive, but being picky with the "relationship" qualities and being able to compromise a bit on the "romance" qualities would tend to lead to a higher chance of having a successful long term relationship. Obviously this is even more important if you're looking for marriage and kids.

[Eggplant]

I think if you're looking for a "rest of my life" relationship it can work with or without the intense infatuation period. The reason it didn't work for you was because you weren't compatible - not because there was a honeymoon phase.

 

If you're looking long term, focusing on qualities that would lend itself to a long term relationship (i.e. compatible values, open and honest communication, and ability to compromise) rather than a short term romance (i.e. sex appeal, intense 'chemistry' etc.) would be beneficial. I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive, but being picky with the "relationship" qualities and being able to compromise a bit on the "romance" qualities would tend to lead to a higher chance of having a successful long term relationship. Obviously this is even more important if you're looking for marriage and kids.

 

Here is my concern as a woman. I keep hearing men in mature relationships complain about not getting enough sex. If I find a man that I am truly romantically and sexually compatible with, I will have an easier time keeping the sex and romance alive through the years. And I won't have to lie to him and tell him I feel attracted to him -- it will be the truth. In that regards, I feel that for a long-term relationship, I must have both friendship AND CHEMISTRY, and that neither can be compromised. As a female who will be busy with kids and other stress, I may be cool with letting the sex part of the relationship slide, but I don't think my male partner will be, and he'll get unhappy.

[Weezy1973]

Here is my concern as a woman. I keep hearing men in mature relationships complain about not getting enough sex. If I find a man that I am truly romantically and sexually compatible with, I will have an easier time keeping the sex and romance alive through the years. And I won't have to lie to him and tell him I feel attracted to him -- it will be the truth. In that regards, I feel that for a long-term relationship, I must have both friendship AND CHEMISTRY, and that neither can be compromised. As a female who will be busy with kids and other stress, I may be cool with letting the sex part of the relationship slide, but I don't think my male partner will be, and he'll get unhappy.

 

I happen to feel the same as you - and I also happen to be the only single person in my group of friends. I keep waiting for that perfect balance, but I honestly don't know how common it is. There isn't some woman in the world that was born just to satisfy exactly what it is I want in a relationship.

 

That being said, I think when people talk about relationships needing work - this is what they're talking about. I think the relationship qualities I was talking about - specifically open and honest communication and an ability to compromise - would lead to a satisfying sex life in a long term relationship. Sure, maybe my penis doesn't stand at attention just because my partner is naked, but if I communicate that certain things are a turn on and she is open to it (and vice versa) - we make it work. We want to have sex not just to cure the hornies (apparently not a word) but to bring ourselves closer emotionally.

[Eggplant]

I happen to feel the same as you - and I also happen to be the only single person in my group of friends. I keep waiting for that perfect balance, but I honestly don't know how common it is. There isn't some woman in the world that was born just to satisfy exactly what it is I want in a relationship.

 

That being said, I think when people talk about relationships needing work - this is what they're talking about. I think the relationship qualities I was talking about - specifically open and honest communication and an ability to compromise - would lead to a satisfying sex life in a long term relationship. Sure, maybe my penis doesn't stand at attention just because my partner is naked, but if I communicate that certain things are a turn on and she is open to it (and vice versa) - we make it work. We want to have sex not just to cure the hornies (apparently not a word) but to bring ourselves closer emotionally.

I'm newly single, so I'm not jaded yet. I simply want to love and be loved. No more. But no less. I think the honeymoon phase is part of our natural biology. It is not too much to hope for.

[MrCastle]

The honeymoon phase is essential in my opinion. How can you end up with someone longterm that you're not absolutely crazy about?

 

I can't picture having a relationship where the first few months are sunshine and gumdrops. Those are the best times.

[Weezy1973]

The honeymoon phase is essential in my opinion. How can you end up with someone longterm that you're not absolutely crazy about?

 

I can't picture having a relationship where the first few months are sunshine and gumdrops. Those are the best times.

 

Sure - and you as well are single. The vast majority of adults are in relationships.

[Eggplant]

Sure - and you as well are single. The vast majority of adults are in relationships.

Everybody should decide his/her own life expectations. If somebody is shooting higher than you dare to shoot, no need to attack. Plenty of people in impoverished countries, for instance, are probably happy without any chemistry or love as long as they have financial security. So it's all relative. I do think, however, that the butterflies of love are worth holding out for, at least for a while. They are part of what makes life worth living. But you may be right, too. I can't know. All anybody can do is take a wild guess and run with it.

[outsidethebox]

Sure - and you as well are single. The vast majority of adults are in relationships.

 

Is this really true? I saw a pretty high percentage of single adults somewhere.

 

Could be in relationships and unmarried, but "vast majority"?

[Weezy1973]

Everybody should decide his/her own life expectations. If somebody is shooting higher than you dare to shoot, no need to attack. Plenty of people in impoverished countries, for instance, are probably happy without any chemistry or love as long as they have financial security. So it's all relative. I do think, however, that the butterflies of love are worth holding out for, at least for a while. They are part of what makes life worth living. But you may be right, too. I can't know. All anybody can do is take a wild guess and run with it.

 

True - but I was speaking about my particular country (Canada). There was a report that 78% of people are in relationships (i.e. the vast majority). In terms of the people I personally know, all of the successful relationships are more friendship based than passion based. The one relationship that I know of where the woman chose her mate based on physical attraction is a terrible relationship. He's cheated multiple times including making obvious passes at her younger.

 

Very anecdotal evidence. And let me add that I myself am holding out for both the physical chemistry plus the deeper friendship connection. So I feel your pain. I am only attracted to slim women (as are most men in my city), so holding out for a single one that isn't crazy is proving to be a difficult venture. I know that if I "lowered" my standards physically I could probably be perfect content in a long term relationship...

[Eggplant]

True - but I was speaking about my particular country (Canada). There was a report that 78% of people are in relationships (i.e. the vast majority). In terms of the people I personally know, all of the successful relationships are more friendship based than passion based. The one relationship that I know of where the woman chose her mate based on physical attraction is a terrible relationship. He's cheated multiple times including making obvious passes at her younger.

 

Very anecdotal evidence. And let me add that I myself am holding out for both the physical chemistry plus the deeper friendship connection. So I feel your pain. I am only attracted to slim women (as are most men in my city), so holding out for a single one that isn't crazy is proving to be a difficult venture. I know that if I "lowered" my standards physically I could probably be perfect content in a long term relationship...

 

I'd guess the truly happy long-term marriages are based on true friendship. Without the friendship, it's too hard. So are there no slim women in Canada? Does the cold weather make them all eat too much lol? That seems like a simple enough personal preference... You'll find somebody, keep being patient.

[MrCastle]

The honeymoon phase is essential in my opinion. How can you end up with someone longterm that you're not absolutely crazy about?

 

I can't picture having a relationship where the first few months are sunshine and gumdrops. Those are the best times.

 

Whoops, meant I can't picture a relationship where the first few months aren't sunshine and gumdrops.

 

Sure - and you as well are single. The vast majority of adults are in relationships.

 

I'm not sure what this means.

[Eternal Sunshine]

The honeymoon phase is essential in my opinion. How can you end up with someone longterm that you're not absolutely crazy about?

 

I can't picture having a relationship where the first few months are sunshine and gumdrops. Those are the best times.

 

I have tried with and without and I dunno about you OP, but I want those butterflies and wanting to jump up and down and not wanting to eat or sleep

[Pyro]

I personally can't picture in my head a relationship that starts without a honeymoon phase.

 

If it works for you OP then more power to you.

[Pyro]

the 'honeymoon phase' is lust not love.

 

Its also the phase in where that lust will slowly turn into love.....or mush.

[Pyro]

the lust isn't much of what turns into love. lust and love get confused.

 

I understand that there is a difference between the two, but when you are lusting you are enjoying your time with them as you get to know them on a more personal level, which in turn is how love develops.

[Eternal Sunshine]

they are fake without compatibility.

 

True. I want both. Sometimes I think it's as hard to find as winning the lottery :/

[Eggplant]

Here is a quote from BBC Science | Human Body & Mind | Science of Love

It says there are 3 stages of love: lust, attraction, and attachment. I believe "honeymoon phase" refers to the attraction.

 

Three Stages of Falling in Love

Stage 1: Lust

Lust is driven by the sex hormones testosterone and oestrogen. Testosterone is not confined only to men. It has also been shown to play a major role in the sex drive of women. These hormones as Helen Fisher says "get you out looking for anything".

Stage 2: Attraction

This is the truly love-struck phase. When people fall in love they can think of nothing else. They might even lose their appetite and need less sleep, preferring to spend hours at a time daydreaming about their new lover.

In the attraction stage, a group of neuro-transmitters called 'monoamines' play an important role:

Dopamine - Also activated by cocaine and nicotine.

Norepinephrine - Otherwise known as adrenalin. Starts us sweating and gets the heart racing.

Serotonin - One of love's most important chemicals and one that may actually send us temporarily insane.

Discover which type of partner you're attracted to by taking our face perception test.

Stage 3: Attachment

This is what takes over after the attraction stage, if a relationship is going to last. People couldn't possibly stay in the attraction stage forever, otherwise they'd never get any work done!

Attachment is a longer lasting commitment and is the bond that keeps couples together when they go on to have children. Important in this stage are two hormones released by the nervous system, which are thought to play a role in social attachments:

Oxytocin - This is released by the hypothalamus gland during child birth and also helps the breast express milk. It helps cement the strong bond between mother and child. It is also released by both sexes during orgasm and it is thought that it promotes bonding when adults are intimate. The theory goes that the more sex a couple has, the deeper their bond becomes

Vasopressin - Another important chemical in the long-term commitment stage. It is an important controller of the kidney and its role in long-term relationships was discovered when scientists looked at the prairie vole

[Weezy1973]

Here is a quote from BBC Science | Human Body & Mind | Science of Love

It says there are 3 stages of love: lust, attraction, and attachment. I believe "honeymoon phase" refers to the attraction.

 

Don't really disagree with that - what I'm saying is that if the qualities that lead to attraction are more in line with attachment than lust - you're more likely to have a successful long term relationship.

[ltjg45]

I could get into a relationship without a "honeymoon phase". Just will take some extra time for me to be fully attracted to her afterwards.

[GoodOnPaper]

Whilst i am glad i got to experience that 'head over heels' feeling with someone,i am debating whether a more grounded approach is actually healthier in the long run....especially the older you are.

 

It depends on how much sex and passion mean for your connection with someone -- or for your identity and self-acceptance in general. I've been with my wife for over 20 years and I don't feel that I had a "honeymoon phase". My singlehood was full of attraction imbalances. Getting dates was exceptionally difficult and on the rare occasions that I did, I was always more attracted than she -- I was always the one dumped. Then I met my wife and she was more into me than I was into her. We're pretty compatible -- but there are pros and cons.

 

The most challenging thing is completely opening up -- one thing that the early infatuation stage does is motivate you to be completely open, emotionally and physically, with your partner. This really does build a foundation for long-term intimacy.

 

The up side is that with compatibility, we enjoy each other's company and there is no stress about spending time together 10, 20, 30, 50 years from now. I'm amazed at some of the guys on LS who can attract ONSs at will but think a relationship of more than a couple months as so much "work".

 

The thing is, most women don't have trouble finding casual sex if they want it -- how tempted would you be to cheat via the occasional ONS or FWB if passion is lacking in your LTR? In my case, that's moot. If I couldn't get dates or find casual sex partners when I was single, I certainly wouldn't be able to do so being married.