“I wanted to see how bad things could get,” is the explanation I was given by a former intimate partner in regard to why she deliberately started a verbal argument with me. For context, when referring to this form of romantic relationship, consider what one source states:
An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves emotional or physical closeness between people and may include sexual intimacy and feelings of romance or love. Intimate relationships are interdependent, and the members of the relationship mutually influence each other.
Much of the contemporary jargon in field of mental, emotional, and behavioral health has referred to relationships of this nature as “partnerships,” because members of intimate relationships are conceptualized as mutual partners who collaborate for relational success.
In any case, when my former intimate partner admitted to initiating conflict with me, she was performing what is known as a hydrostatic or pressure test in mechanics. Regarding this method of determining the strength or weakness of a complex system, one source states:
A hydrostatic test is a way in which pressure vessels such as pipelines, plumbing, gas cylinders, boilers and fuel tanks can be tested for strength and leaks. The test involves filling the vessel or pipe system with a liquid, usually water, which may be dyed to aid in visual leak detection, and pressurization of the vessel to the specified test pressure. Pressure tightness can be tested by shutting off the supply valve and observing whether there is a pressure loss.
At the time I was being pressure-tested by my girlfriend, I considered her behavior to be manipulative—serving or intended to control or influence others in an artful and often unfair or selfish way. Why else would she pick a fight with me?
However, when resolving conflict, she elucidated a logical and reasonable point I hadn’t previously considered. During that point in my life, I was five feet and 11 inches tall, weighing approximately 250 pounds.
She, on the other hand, was five feet tall and weighed something like 115 pounds. My girlfriend explained that although she’d come to know (as much as a person can ever actually know someone) and love me, she’d not observed “how bad things could get” when I was angry.
Her pressure-testing behavior was a matter of physical safety, something about which I wasn’t previously aware. I knew I’d never physically assault her, though she wanted to discover for herself if I was capable of harm during the courtship period of our relationship.
While I didn’t like or love the fact that I was subject to an intimate partner relationship stress test, my girlfriend’s reasoning made sense to me. In the realm of pickup artists, pressure-testing is crudely referred to as shit-testing. One source describes this process thusly:
Something that a woman has said to a man that will, based on his response, give her information on whether or not he is strong enough to be worthy of being a boyfriend or sexual partner. If he takes her words literally or too seriously, he will fail the test and lose the opportunity to proceed in their potential relationship.
A less offensive term that addresses similar assessment relates to that of a stress test. About such relational examination, one source states, “If during or after the stress test either of us felt the relationship wouldn’t work, we would part amicably without drama or guilt.”
Although I’d been subject to intimate partner stress-testing on many occasions prior to that regarding my most recent girlfriend (a decade ago), I was unaware there were terms for such behavior. Admittedly, I see the value in assessing the compatibility of relationships in this way.
When reading the rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) book Creative Marriage, I came across decisive example of stress tests advocated by the authors (pages 48-54). Herein, I’ll address each of these recommendatory should practices related to testing behavior in regard to marriage.
1. You can, first of all, realistically expect and accept a fair degree of incompatibility in virtually any marriage.
Imagine creating an irrational illusion of marital compatibility. Perhaps person X unproductively believes that one’s intimate partner (person Y) not only should, must, or ought to share a sexual appetite, though believes that person Y better, has to, or needs to be enthusiastic about sexual satisfaction in the romantic relationship.
Why must person Y share person X’s sexual appetite? Even if person Y begrudgingly engages in sexual intercourse as a perceived form of marital obligation, why should person Y be enthusiastic about performing sexual acts which aren’t particularly enjoyable for the partner?
The authors of Creative Marriage state about the expectation of dissimilar desires, “Happiness, as has been pointed out by several profound thinkers for many decades, is a ratio between what you expect and what you get.” Persons X and Y could perhaps alter their expectations.
After all, illogical and unreasonable illusions of marital compatibility may not serve a dyad (couple) well. Of this point, the authors conclude, “If your marital expectations are reasonable, disillusionment with your spouse will be virtually impossible.”
Of course, this particular point doesn’t involve stress-testing. There’s more to come on that form of assessment in a bit. For now, it’s worth considering flexible versus rigid standards and expectations when entering into an intimate partner relationship as serious as marriage.
2. Incompatibilities of temperament, physique, or tastes can, to a moderate extent, be worked at and changed.
Suppose person Y unhelpfully assumes that person X should enjoy going to social outings, such as an after work bowling event during which behavioral health providers are drinking and bowling, though person X hesitantly attends the event while not wanting to participate.
Person Y’s taste relates to enjoyment of social outings while person X’s taste is of an asocial variety. Why must persons X and Y share enjoyment with one another’s particular tastes?
Although person X doesn’t relish bowling activity, moderation of asocial preference eventually results in attendance at the event nonetheless. This is an example of compromise—settlement of differences by consent reached by mutual concessions.
While person X suppresses the desire to stay at home, person Y could subdue the desire for person X to enjoy the outing. However, this matter takes on a whole other level of concern when it comes to potentially harmful behavior.
Forgive me a personal anecdote. I once worked with a guy who was an avid motorcycle stunt rider. With a height of about six feet and two inches, and weighting around 250 pounds, this big dude would sometimes perform the Christ stunt on his way to work when riding his motorcycle.
Do you know what’s more cool that being able to stand fully erect on a motorcycle while extending both arms outward to your side when traveling at a high rate of speed on your way to work? Not having traumatic brain injury from performing the Christ stunt!
My former coworker’s girlfriend expressed concern with his reckless behavior. This is a different matter than complaining about someone’s asocial personality trait or whether or not one’s intimate partner leaves messes around the home. Regarding this distinction, authors of Creative Marriage state:
If, without nagging or blaming him in any way, you calmly proceeded to try to teach him to be neater or more cleanly, his preferences in this connection would gradually become closer to your own, and this kind of “incompatibility” between the two of you would vanish.
The main trick here, however, consists of picking on a habit of your spouse which actually is doing him some harm and which he would benefit from changing and then calmly, unpunitively, and uncritically persuading him that it really is for his good, and not merely for yours, to change.
Because my former coworker’s girlfriend apparently chose to nag him about his dangerous stunts, the type of friends he kept, his preferred music, and a host of other matters, he largely disregarded her expressed concern. Therefore, selectiveness of relational goals may be worth considering in regard to incompatibility.
Similar to the first element addressed herein, this particular point doesn’t involve stress-testing. There’s more to come on that form of assessment. At present, it’s worth considering a selective and limited approach to behavior modification when in a romantic relationship.
3. Incompatible tastes and interests can sometimes be limited in their obnoxiousness by careful planning and mutual consent.
Building upon momentum regarding the second element of this post, imagine that person X enjoys watching movies within a fantasy genre while person Y instead appreciates romantic comedies (rom-coms). Must persons X and Y participate in the tastes or interests of their partner?
Could they perhaps alternatively come to a healthy compromise? When thinking of a compromise, I’m reminded of something a legal mediator once told me.
He said, “A compromise is when we consent and whereby I get some of what I want, you get some of what you want, I don’t get everything I want, you don’t get everything you want, we both are content with what we get and a little disappointed when we don’t get all that we want.”
A healthy compromise for persons X and Y would be to watch their respective films in separate rooms, or at separate times, and without one or the other participating in a perceivably obnoxious fantasy or rom-com viewing experience. Regarding this approach, authors of Creative Marriage state:
Compromises in these respects are frequently feasible and worth the trouble of talking things out and coming to mutually accepted terms. Sometimes, this just will not work; for the mate who gives in to the other may build up enormous resentment in doing so.
If one or both intimate partners unhelpfully assumes that compromises are awful or that one can’t stand not to get everything that one irrationally demands, then the partners may develop resentment—the experience of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury.
As is the case with the aforementioned elements addressed herein, this particular point doesn’t involve stress-testing. I assure you that there’s more to come on that form of assessment. In the meantime, I invite you to consider how compromise is necessary for a healthy relationship.
4. Perhaps the very best way to make the proper allowances for marital incompatibility is to place a much greater emphasis on mate selection than is usually done in our culture.
Finally, we’ve arrived at the stress-testing of intimate partner relationships. I wanted to build upon foundational principles regarding romantic relationship success before exploring the utility of dyad shit-testing activities.
Imagine that persons X and Y aren’t married. They are very much in love with one another, which is a separate matter from merely loving each other, though each individual hasn’t taken time to carefully and critically analyze relational compatibility.
Concerning this experience, authors of Creative Marriage state that “although it is rather silly for most individuals, today, to marry anyone whom they do not love, it is equally silly for them to marry everyone whom they do.” Simply because one loves or is in love doesn’t mean marriage is a wise idea.
While it may sound like an odd recommendatory should-based advisement, the authors advocate “discriminating” assessment of one’s prospective marital partner. To discriminate merely means to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences, as to recognize or identify as separate and distinct.
This is where stress-testing may be useful. Suppose that when my ex-girlfriend shit-tested me by starting an intense argument I would’ve punched her in the face (forbid). She favored a moral and ethical standard that wasn’t conducive to intimate partner violence (IPV).
Therefore, had I physically battered her, my girlfriend would’ve likely discriminated against my IPV behavior. Such discernment wouldn’t have been unhealthy, illogical, or unreasonable. Quite the contrary!
Thus, she pressure-tested me in order to ascertain if what I’d previously told her about, in regard to my stance on IPV, was something reflected in what I’d shown her through my behavior. As such, she placed a much greater emphasis on mate selection than to simply believe what I told her.
In a blogpost entitled Trust Life, I quoted Maya Angelou who advocated believing people when they show you who they are, because they “know themselves much better than you do.” Although I didn’t enjoy being tested, I respected that my ex-girlfriend wanted to see how I behaved when angry.
It helps that I practiced REBT and didn’t self-disturb during the event. As such, I calmly stood up, expressed that I was leaving, left her apartment, and went home. I passed her stress test. How about you? How might you respond when being pressure-tested?
5. Another prophylactic mode of minimizing possible incompatibility in marriage is for the courting couple to deemphasize romance.
Along with use of shit tests, it may be helpful for unmarried intimate partners to participate in activities which aren’t customarily romantic. Okay, so you’re sexually compatible. However, how well-matched are you when it comes to the inescapability of death?
While it may sound like an odd date, strolling through a cemetery or actually attending a funeral together could open up a topic rich in discussion about the opposite side of the proverbial coin representing life. Is either partner particularly apprehensive about addressing non-sexual subject matter of this sort?
If so, I posit that marriage isn’t one continuous orgasmic experience. Rarely is that the case, if ever. Instead, it’s quite likely that death will impact the intimate partnership at some point. Death of a grandparent, parent, child, or romantic partner is almost guaranteed in marriages.
By deemphasizing romance and ascertaining whether or not one’s chosen intimate partner can tolerate and accept the negative emotions of life we learn if a pressure-tested system can withstand hardship. Stress-testing of this sort may be more important to relational success than determining whether or not one’s anatomy is sexually satisfying.
6. Marital compatibility can and often should be tested, during the premarital stage, in action rather than only in words.
The authors of Creative Marriage make use of an outright recommendatory should statement when advocating stress tests during the premarital stage of dating and courtship. After all, it isn’t uncommon for people to verbally exaggerate the lengths to which they’re willing to go for love.
Whether intentional or not, people misrepresent truth when seeking to pair bond. Person X may rent an exotic sports car, embellish stories about occupational success, and assume an air of bravado related to one’s ability to protect person Y when dating.
Similarly, person Y may’ve applied makeup, used social media filters, and carefully crafted anatomical angles which accentuate one’s physique when person X discovered this individual on Instagram. Both people are putting on proverbial masks of how they want to be perceived.
However, much like the insincerity of words, the masks people wear may not reveal as much about a person’s behavior as that of stress-testing. It may be worth assessing how a person behaves – not merely how one acts (performance of behavior) – during the premarital stage.
According to the authors of Creative Marriage, “Although two romantically attracted individuals can easily maintain various verbal pretensions, it is much harder for them consistently to fool themselves when the chips of real activity are down.” Thus, shit-testing may be in order.
7. There is another old-fashioned, but fairly effective, aid in testing for potential compatibility in marriage: time.
Arguably, the longer a person waits while assessing whether or not an intimate partner will be a proper fit for marriage, the more likely it will be that proverbial masks will have inevitably dissolved. Of course, I’m not making any absolute guarantees in this regard.
Eloquently stated by the authors of Creative Marriage, “The curtain of romance is made of wispy silk, not iron, and time permits glances behind the curtain to see whether intimations of secure companionship are lurking solidly behind.” Truly, I couldn’t have said it any better.
8. Any couple that really wants to be honest about testing for compatibility in marriage can recruit wonderful allies from families and friends.
The aforementioned former girlfriend of mine stress-tested me in relation to her friends and family members, and I didn’t always consider the experience pleasant. As though one personal anecdote in a blogpost weren’t enough, forgive me yet another.
After having met the father figure of my then-girlfriend and spent a week or so getting to know him along with her mother, we took both individuals to the airport when it was time to say goodbye. Growing up, I was taught to firmly shake a man’s hand while looking him in the eyes.
Staying true to conventional norms, I administered a relatively strong handshake and looked the father figure in his eyes. In turn, he pulled my hand closer to him, setting my body off-balance, and sternly stated, “Take care of mi hija [my daughter].”
I’d been around the intimate partner dating block enough times in my life with people from Latin-influenced cultures to know what was taking place. The man was issuing a shit-test with inferred meaning: Take care of my daughter, or else there’ll be consequences for your actions.
I had no intention of violating the two hallmarks of manhood up with which I was raised – to provide and protect. Likewise, I was already practicing REBT by that point in my life so I didn’t self-disturb in regard to a perceived threat. I was already taking care of his hija whom I loved.
Pressure-testing of that sort was understandable to me. After all, when I once had a stepdaughter and knew nothing of REBT, woe have been to the individual who would’ve harmed her when she was under my care.
At any rate, authors of Creative Marriage suggest, “Families and friends can help bring out the relaxed habits and manners of the individual as distinguished from his or her ‘company manners.” Thus, one’s romantic interest may behave truer to form when around such people.
Stripping away what the authors refer to as “phony pretenses” is therefore advantageous when determining marital compatibility. What better assessment mechanism is there than to observe one’s intimate partner when in the company of those individuals who know the person best?
While I understand that foundational principles regarding romantic relationship success and specific stress tests discussed herein may not be appreciated by everyone, I find these elements to be quite helpful in mate selection. How about you? What do you think about this topic?
Does the act of stress-testing intimate partner relationships sound like something that may be of value to you? If you’d like to know more about how to live rationally, through use of similar techniques addressed herein, I’m here to help.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
Photo credit (edited), fair use
References:
Bajaj, Pulsar. (2011, June 15). Pulsar stunt guide | How to perform Christ stunt | Bajaj Pulsar [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/uzuyXCI2tc4?si=Dbw9JSrfNWrjTVNK
Diana_mironenko. (n.d.). Funny friends spending their time together and having fun. Woman make some crazy faces and guy does not look at it. Modern hairstyle and makeup, fancy jeans suit on her slim body [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/funny-friends-spending-their-time-together-having-fun-woman-make-some-crazy-faces-guy-does-look-it-modern-hairstyle-makeup-fancy-jeans-suit-her-slim-body_11953542.htm#fromView=search&page=2&position=15&uuid=5836d692-be95-42a0-848a-2f4c13199d2a
Ellis, A. and Harper, R. A. (1961). Creative Marriage. The Institute For Rational Living, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/creative-marriage-e184052310.html
Game Global. (n.d.). Game Glossary. Retrieved from https://www.gameglobal.net/glossary/
Hollings, D. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing
Hollings, D. (2024, May 30). Behavioral health care. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/behavioral-health-care
Hollings, D. (2024, June 2). Blame. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/blame
Hollings, D. (2024, September 15). Challenging disappointment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/challenging-disappointment
Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern
Hollings, D. (2024, June 24). Contentment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/contentment
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2024, April 13). Goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/goals
Hollings, D. (2024, August 27). Guilt and shame are choices. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/guilt-and-shame-are-choices
Hollings, D. (2024, September 24). Happy place. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/happy-place
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2022, December 9). Like it, love it, accept it. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/like-it-love-it-accept-it
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2024, May 21). Love is blind. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/love-is-blind
Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (2022, October 30). Luv(sic). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/luv-sic
Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-emotional-and-behavioral-health
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, May 15). Rational living. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-living
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Recommendatory should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/recommendatory-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). TBI. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/__tbi
Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna
Hollings, D. (2023, September 10). Trust life. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/trust-life
Hollings, D. (2022, July 11). Unconditional acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2024, March 18). Unhealthy vs. healthy negative emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unhealthy-vs-healthy-negative-emotions
Hollings, D. (2024, April 10). Welcome to complex systems. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/welcome-to-complex-systems
Jaksic, J. (2016, May 27). Puttling love to the stress test. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/fashion/modern-love-tech-relationship-trial.html
Kramer, J. (2015, January 6). What you can learn from a relationship “stress test.” Glamour. Retrieved from https://www.glamour.com/story/what-you-can-learn-from-a-rela
OWN. (2011, October 27). Oprah recalls one of her favorite life lessons from Maya Angelou | Oprah’s Lifeclass | OWN [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/BTiziwBhd54?si=bUQNjLmfuRsod5Nk
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Hydrostatic test. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_test
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Intimate relationship. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_relationship
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Maya Angelou. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Angelou
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Pair bond. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Pickup artist. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickup_artist
Commenti