Relationship contracts are back in the news again (thankfully). Recently my co-author and I spoke with Caroline Kitchener for an article for the Lily that ran on Valentine’s Day. (Proof that relationship contracts are indeed romantic!) I turned Caroline onto the history of relationship contracts, which I wrote about a few years ago but, unfortunately, didn’t discover in time to include in The New I Do, and the workshop that Harvard-trained behavioral scientist Logan Ury, who is working on a book on relationships, offered in advance of her SXSW talk. The millennials quoted in the article clearly get what a relationship contract is all about — a way to “optimize happiness and clarity in a relationship,” one couple notes.
Exactly! Clarity and matched expectations lead to a happier partnership. And that’s what all want, right?
But what often happens as something gets “buzz” (and I know this all too well as a journalist) is that some media outlets want to jump into the conversation and offer “yes, but” responses.
For example, the New York Post, which opens an article on relationship contracts with a couple who created a contract a mere 15 dates into their relationship that puts limits on NPR listening, football watching and time spent on mandatory daily phone calls, and then asks so-called “experts” for their reaction.
I just want to, I dunno, scream.
But let me dial it back.
Contracts, as individual as the couple
If a couple wants to include stipulations on NPR listening, football watching and mandatory daily phone calls, or anything else that may seem odd to you or me, in their relationship contract, that’s OK: The whole purpose of a relationship contract is to clarify things for the couple based on their values and goals, to avoid assumptions and unexpressed expectations. As they go about creating one, what happens is they start to talk about things that may not have been addressed if they weren’t being intentional about what they’re doing.
That’s really the goal of a relationship contract — to get couples to be more open, especially when it comes to talking about the hard stuff, and come to a greater understand of each other and who they will be together. Maybe for some couples it is all about the daily minutiae — NPR, football and phone calls. The couples I spoke with, however, used their relationship contracts to help them sort out the issues that typically cause couples the most stress — money, sex, chores, children, in-laws, conflict, work, etc. — and that also speak to their needs for validation, acceptance, respect, space, love, compassion, etc.
And, guess what — they didn’t need to go to a relationship “expert” to see if they were doing it right; no one but the couple can decide what feels good and what doesn’t.
Don’t buy into ‘shoulds’
I can see that relationship contracts are going to get more and more buzz, and with that people who will try to steer you into what you “should” include.” There already are templates on the internet you can buy and suggestions by relationship coaches such as, “We agree to maintain a weekly, distractions-free date night,” which puts unnecessary pressure on couples who may not want or need “a weekly, distractions-free date night.” So, don’t get swept up in those “shoulds.”
The sample contract we offer in in Chapter 3 of The New I Do and suggested topics unique to various marital models in Chapter 10 illustrate potential sticky subjects you might want to discuss. Or not.
That said, you likely know what you want from a relationship. Your partner likely knows what he or she wants, too. And together, you will craft an agreement, written or not (some, like Married with Luggage bloggers and authors Betsy and Warren Talbot, prefer verbal contracts), that speaks to those desires.
Trust yourself. You don’t need “experts,” “coaches” or templates. You just need an open heart and mind.
Want to explore relationship contracts? (Of course you do!) Read The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels (Seal Press). You can support your local indie bookstore or order it on Amazon.
Loading tweets...
