In Defense of the DTR
By Jolene Macaluso
“I yearned for adventure, for love, for romance, and I seemed condemned to an existence of drab utility. The village possessed a lending library full of tattered works of fiction, and I enjoyed perils and love-making at second hand, and went to sleep dreaming of stern, silent Rhodesians, and of strong men who always ‘felled their opponent with a single blow.’ There was no one in the village who even looked as though he could ‘fell’ an opponent within a single blow, or with several...”
Agatha Christie, The Man in the Brown Suit.
It often seems, in literature as in life, that a young heroine finds herself poised at extremes: trapped by the absence of knight in shining armor, looking around her and wondering “where are all the men?”; or rescued and riding blissfully beside her love away into the sunset. Much lies in the middle of these extremes, so why does the mean receive less attention?
Universally, mankind longs for relationship, and that special romantic relationship seems the unique blight of most every blossoming female. The established ideals of Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy, of Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, of Anne Shirley and Gilbert Blythe—and even of figures tragic as Anna Karenina, or Romeo and Juliet—capture the imaginative minds and swell the longing hearts of those anxious for such a storybook love of their own, yet these romantic ideals often sneakily gloss over one crucial component of life-long love: that of defining the relationship from the off-set.
Most of these idyllic couples transition from sheer unacquaintedness or icy hostility to burning, passionate love (accompanied by a conveniently immediate offer of marriage) at the flip of a page. Ever seeking to fashion ourselves after our ideals, we know ‘the hero gets the girl’ in the end, and we tend to want to skip ahead to our own ‘happily ever after’ upon the ‘love at first sight’ phase in our own lives.
But the reality of relationships is often less obliging.
Whether you find yourself still yearning and enjoying love second-hand, in the midst of an ill or undefined “Hillsdating” relationship, happily single, or happily settled and already through the “talking” stage, developing a right approach to what such a tiresome trial can consists of and why it should not be avoided or neglected, as in literature and Rom-Coms, can provide a solid foundation for relationships in general.
DTR. Define the Relationship, through and to Direction, Trust, Revelation.
Define//Direction:
First, why should we worry about ‘defining’ the relationship at all? Is there not more freedom in ambiguity?
On the contrary, ambiguity offers only a negative source of freedom. As long as the relationship remains undefined, the freedom this “situationship” offers is hollow precisely because the relationship lacks any meaningful responsibility, offering answers only as to what the relationship is not. This freedom from anything is also a freedom for nothing, which is no real freedom at all. True, freedom lies in ensuring that both parties agree upon the liberalities for the relationship ahead of them. Such freedom names or defines what the relationship between the two parties is rather than what it is not: it gives the relationship not merely a name but, in so doing, a direction.
This act of “naming” or “defining” is the first responsibility given to mankind—
”Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” Genesis 2:19
—and markedly images the Divine power by which God created through His Word. Additionally,
“one of the four loves that C. S. Lewis so memorably chronicled (is that of) storge, that is, affection. This love is not merely expressed through naming, it is also activated through naming: we call those whom we love by name. Moreover, I would argue, we come to love those things that we are able to call by name”
(Bradford Littlejohn, Introduction to Reforming Classical Education, page 4). It stands to reason, then, that if we can name the essence of our relationship, we better understand it—its character and nature—and can grow in love of both the other person and the relationship we share. If we don’t know what “it” (the relationship) is by naming and defining it, how can we grow in or pursue “it”? Really, what we seek to do in defining a relationship is to exercise dominion over and direct it along the path of shared vision.
When a couple intentionally sits down and endures a period of defining their budding relationship, they are not finitely determining an end or even merely settling on a static Facebook status; rather, they are mapping their course, choosing a path, making sure their compasses are in alignment as to what North is. The expectation of this period of defining does not lie in already reaching the end, but it should determine your two individual shared ends aligned into one. For instance, if in dating, your shared goal is discerning marriage, you should not end the DTR talk intending to set a date and go buy a ring the next day. You don’t have to answer the question“is this the person I’m going to marry?” at the moment of defining the relationship, but you should acknowledge the elephant-in-the-room and admit that you want to answer the question over the course of your relationship. This too allows for far more freedom because it offers options as opposed to settling on only one possible outcome. As you pursue such an answer, it may turn out to be ‘no,’ which is just as much of an answer as ‘yes.’
So what is your target? Where are you collectively aiming? If you know this, you are more likely to hit the mark because you know where the mark lies. Without this definition, there is no clearly defined mark, which means you’re missing the mark, every time you take aim.
The//Trust:
We’ve now conceptualized philosophically and practically why defining, or naming, the relationship is such an important step: it assumes responsibility, gives direction, and brings unity. Beyond this, the what of such a conversation also brings unity.
The big-picture question of ‘where are we going’ is probably the best place to start, but there are other minutiae that need attention as well, such as ‘how are we getting there?’ But first, I want to highlight that determining a direction and a name for the relationship requires initial vulnerability in the admission of feelings. This same vulnerability is often precisely why we avoid such conversations in the first place. No one likes to feel vulnerable or to unwisely open themselves up to the prospect of pain, and talking about how you feel toward someone certainly involves this risk.
That’s why, instead of putting the emphasis on the relationship, I encourage you to put it on each of you individually: the relationship exists to serve you as a couple, not as an idea of a couple. Thus, in the “what” of your conversation, give opportunity for each of you to express how you feel, perhaps why you feel so, and your hopes in connection with said feelings. Don’t hold back! Don’t meter your answer to match the level of the other’s. Be painfully honest, even if that means you’re the one feeling the pain.
Slight secret: if we had some sort of device that could measure the respective affection of individuals in a couple, the outcomes would almost never be identical, even in a marriage. Though often slight, some level of disparity in affection will almost always exist between members of a couple. Why? Because love is paradoxically both static and dynamic; it is unconditional, and therefore permanent and unchanging when we love with God’s love, but, because we are human, love is also associated with our emotions, which fluctuate, and change with time. True love deepens over time, and though it retains its same character, yet it grows to a degree which makes it almost unrecognizable from the first.
If this is the kind of love that of the Greatest and First Fairytale: the Gospel, that you desire, then why would you withhold something from that love in the here and now by not sharing honestly with the other? Though it doesn’t make the famous list of Love’s characteristics in 1 Corinthians 13, we know that love is honest. Honestly speaking about your hopes and expectations allows for sincere communication. This not only sets an excellent precedent for the relationship you’re establishing, but it also boasts a better success rate. If both parties are honest, expectations can be better set for the satisfaction of both. If truth is withheld, it cannot be considered in terms of conclusions or compromises, and someone will inevitably end up dissatisfied.
The overarching strength required is trust. To be vulnerable, we must trust. To be honest, we must trust. To love and be loved, we must trust. Clear, honest communication provides a firm foundation for any relationship, and such communication requires trust. Let the practice of trust through honesty in establishing how you intend to communicate as a couple be the first fruit of love in this conversation.
Relationship//Revelation:
Lastly, determining the direction of your relationship and establishing open and honest communication through trust can result in some incredible revelations. You will learn a great deal about yourself and your potential significant other. Such a conversation requires you each to know your own feelings, hopes, desires, and expectations; as well as the direction you want the relationship to go before you begin (or, at least, to figure it out as you discuss.) So, embrace the awkwardness. Establish your footing as two individuals now in one relationship, navigating the challenge of growing together, so that you may exit this season and enter the next with shared expectations. Who knows? You might find yourself in a fairytale.
