From time to time, I consume online dating content (i.e., videos, podcasts, etc.) in order to familiarize myself with the types of issues my clients may experience in regard to imitate partner relationships. Recently, I observed one such exchange that I think is worthy of attention.
On one episode of the Fresh & Fit Podcast, host Myron Gaines engaged in dialogue with a guest during which both individuals expressed romantic partner expectation—the act or state of considering something logical and reasonable, due, or necessary. The verbal exchange unfolded thusly:
Host: Women really have only one job in a relationship: be loyal, don’t be a whore. So if you betray that, you’ve lost the value to the man. This is why girls that are whores are not respected. But if your guy goes out and fucks another bitch, he could still provide for you, he can still love you, he can still take care of you; he can still provide value outside of fucking another girl. But you, ladies, if you fuck another dude, it’s over.
Guest: Yeah, but I feel like if you’re with someone and you have a commitment to them, you should at least set it to a certain boundary. Like, don’t go out and fuck a whole other girl.
As is customary, I highlight misuse of the word “feel” when I encounter it. A feeling is an emotion (e.g., sad) or bodily perception (e.g., tingling in my toes). However, one doesn’t “feel like” being with someone.
A person is either with someone or not. Additionally, one can think, believe, interpret, have a hunch, suppose, or make use of any other cognitive processes which are often misused for the word feel. Nevertheless, one cannot “feel like” being with someone. Yet, I digress.
Viewing the expressed expectations of the host and guest through the lens of rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT), I’m immediately aware of the distinction between desires and demands. In particular, I’m cognizant of the ABC model and how people upset themselves regarding this distinction.
REBT uses the ABC model to illustrate how when Activating events (“Actions”) occur and people maintain irrational Beliefs about the events, these unhelpful assumptions – and not the actual occurrences – are what cause unpleasant cognitive, emotive, bodily sensation, and behavioral Consequences.
In particular, there are four predominate irrational beliefs which people often use: demandingness, awfulizing, low frustration tolerance, and global evaluations. In REBT, the process of upsetting oneself with these unfavorable beliefs is referred to as self-disturbance.
It’s worth noting that the two forms of should, must, and ought-type demands with which people most often self-disturb are associated with use of absolutistic and conditional should beliefs. Generally speaking, these serve as rigid commands used toward oneself, others, and life.
Although still serving as a form of prescription rather than description, flexible use of recommendatory, preferential, ideal, empirical, moral and ethical, and legal should beliefs doesn’t necessarily lead to self-upset. Here, rigidity versus flexibility makes a difference.
Addressing how people upset themselves with unhelpful attitudes, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of these unproductive assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs. Noteworthy, Actions and Consequences aren’t Disputed, only unproductive Beliefs.
From a psychological standpoint, people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.
As an example, an unfaithful intimate partner who has unprotected sex with another person (Action) may contract a sexually transmitted infection or “STI” (Consequence). From an A-C perspective, unprotected sex with an individual may result in an STI.
Alternatively, when your partner contracts an STI (Action) and you unhelpfully Believe, “I can’t stand that s/he was unfaithful and s/he shouldn’t have cheated” then you’ll likely self-upset into an angry disposition (Consequence). Thus, self-disturbance is caused by a B-C connection.
Furthermore, REBT uses the technique of unconditional acceptance to relieve suffering. This is accomplished through use of unconditional self-acceptance, unconditional other-acceptance, and unconditional life-acceptance.
When using REBT, I try to help people to stop upsetting themselves through use of B-C connections, though I can’t fully resolve their A-C experiences. After all, I don’t have enough control or influence to stop people from cheating on their romantic partners.
In the case of the Fresh & Fit Podcast episode, the host articulated a self-disturbing conditional should belief. Summarizing his declaration, one may presume the host believes that if women are to retain their value to men, then they shouldn’t engage in infidelity.
If my interpretation of his belief is correct, the host doesn’t maintain this rigid standard for men. To assess whether or not his perceived expectation (i.e., if-then or either-or condition) is rational—that which is in accordance with logic and reason—consider the following syllogisms:
Syllogism #1:
Form (conditional) –
If p is true, then q is true (i.e., if p, then q).
Example –
If it’s true that men retain their value when unfaithful and women do not, then it’s true that my cheating wife has no value to me.
Syllogism #2:
Form (hypothetical) –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If men retain their value when unfaithful and women do not, then my cheating wife has no value to me.
If my cheating wife has no value to me, then I’ll find a woman who meets my expectation for men being able to cheat while women should remain faithful.
Therefore, if men retain their value when unfaithful and women do not, then I’ll find a woman who meets my expectation for men being able to cheat while women should remain faithful.
Syllogism #3:
Form (disjunctive) –
Either p or q; not p; therefore, q.
Example –
Either women should share the same privilege to cheat as men or men should retain their value when cheating while women shouldn’t.
Women shouldn’t share the same privilege to cheat as men.
Therefore, men should retain their value when cheating while women shouldn’t.
Syllogism numbers 1, 2, and 3 each follow logical form. However, it depends on one’s personal moral and ethical perspective as to whether or not these syllogistic conclusions are reasonable—in accordance with a statement offered in explanation or justification for a proposal.
In this regard, a moral is of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior (i.e., good, bad, appropriate, inappropriate, etc.). Ethics are principles of conduct governing an individual or a group (e.g., because one deems it bad to cheat, the individual ethically refuses to be unfaithful).
Clearly, the Fresh & Fit Podcast episode guest rejected the host’s proposal. Ostensibly, she disagreed with the rationale for syllogisms 1, 2, and 3. Thus, through her perceived perspective, such syllogistic logic arrived at unreasonable conclusions and is therefore deemed irrational.
Both the host and the guest voiced their countering prospects. From an REBT perspective, both individuals may’ve self-disturbed when using unhelpful expectations which were predicated on conditional should beliefs.
As an example, “If you want to be with a man, then you should accept that he will cheat.” Likewise, one may unhelpfully demand, “Either you will accept that women don’t want to be cheated on, or you should expect that women will also cheat on men.”
Suppose you share the expectation belief of the host. I imagine that you support the notion that as long as men provide and protect for women, you maintain that it’s morally and ethically proper for men to cheat on women when in intimate partner relationships.
Alternatively, you may value the expectation belief of the guest. Thus, I suspect that you support the notion of equal privileges in a committed romantic relationship and with a preference for monogamy.
When practicing REBT, I invite self-determined and autonomous people to consider personal responsibility and accountability for their self-disturbed responses to beliefs about activating events. However, it’s not my role to push morals and values on other people.
Contemplating this matter further, I’m reminded of something the authors of Creative Marriage expressed when working with a male client who was going through the process of becoming a physician at which time his wife engaged in an extramarital affair (page 72):
You certainly have a right to decide that you will give your life to a medical career. Even if it were a less worthy project, you’d still have that right. Nor do I think that anyone has any business trying to divert you from your purpose. But do you have the right to try to force your wife down this road with you? This I question. Anyhow, my question is theoretical—she’s made it clear that she’s not taking the trip.
This is precisely the sort of disputation one could helpfully expect of a client who expresses unhelpful expectations. The authors didn’t advocate telling the client what to think, how to feel, or what to do. Rather, the individual seeking mental, emotional, and behavioral health services decides for oneself. The authors continue (page 72):
Her main purpose in life seems to be to have a home with a loving and attentive husband and father for her children. She married you with the expectation that you would be that kind of person. Perhaps she was mistaken in having that expectation; but she did have it.
In the case of Creative Marriage, the husband maintained an expectation for his wife to remain committed to their marriage throughout his extensive medical training process. However, the wife retained her own expectation for the husband to place her and their children above a career.
This isn’t dissimilar to countervailing expectations of intimate partner relationships featured on the Fresh & Fit Podcast episode. Regarding this matter, the verbal exchange continued thusly:
Guest: We do provide though.
Host: No you don’t.
Guest: Yes we do!
Host (Walter Weekes): How do you stand out?
Guest: How do I stand out? How ‘bout—there’s guys out here that have the bitch that every guy looks at when they’re walking out with them. That’s how we provide. You have the girl that every guy is looking for.
When viewing the guest’s response through the lens of REBT, I’m mindful of not using an irrational belief related to global evaluation. Perhaps instinctively, my first thought when hearing her response was, “Oh, ain’t this some shit? This lame ass woman!”
As a fallible human being, my immediate thought was presented though it wasn’t something in which I believed. Here, a thought is merely an opinion in the mind and a belief is something that is tacitly accepted or considered to be true.
I don’t judge myself for merely having thoughts. In fact, it would be through use of an unfavorable global evaluation that I would believe, “I’m a piece of shit for having negatively rated the guest.”
Rather, when hearing rhetoric espoused by the guest – something I’ve also heard from former intimate partners – I don’t engage in self-disturbance in regard to my transient thoughts or her comments. Thus, while I thought of her as being lame, I don’t believe this to be true.
In any case, the hosts of the Fresh & Fit Podcast episode apparently maintain a standard for men which relates to providing for and protecting women. The guest seemingly misunderstood her role of a visually desirable woman as that relating to a form of providing in a romantic relationship.
These are misaligned expectations which are quite similar to that of the physician in training and his unfaithful wife described in Creative Marriage. Eventually, the authors conclude in regard to such unhelpful expectations (page 74):
His love for his wife and children was more theory than practice. His real passion was medicine, and he came soon to welcome the additional time he was given to devote himself to this first love [after the couple separated and eventually divorced].
Some unhelpful expectations can be reasoned with and may result in amiable compromises. However, there are many instances in which this isn’t the case. To provide a final example of the Fresh & Fit Podcast episode in which logic and reason prevailed, consider the following:
Guest: A guy having money and providing for you is the same exact thing as a girlfriend—
Host: Wait, wait, wait, wait! Are there more attractive women or successful men?
Guest: I think there’s more attractive women.
Host: So look, you might not know; supply and demand. If there’s more attractive women, that means that there’s less successful men, right?
Guest: Yeah.
Host: Who’s the prize?
Guest: Women are the prize.
Host: If there’s more of them, then how are they the prize?
Guest: If there’s more of them, how are they the prize? I mean, I don’t know. I don’t know how to answer that question.
Host: That’s my point! If something is common, it is no longer as valued.
Guest: Okay, but like, she’s not common in every…in every other guy’s life. That doesn’t matter how common pretty girls are.
Host: But you just made the argument that it’s girls—“People are looking at his girl! Oh my God, she’s hot! She’s a show-stopper!”
Guest: But do you agree with me though?
Host: No, I don’t.
Guest: Okay, then how come there are more—how come more women reject men than men reject women?
Host: ‘Cause that proves my point. Most men are not attractive. Most men are not attractive!
Guest: So there’s more pretty women than successful men.
Host: Yes.
Guest: Okay, so you agree with me?
Host: So if there are successful men, guess who has the leverage now.
Guest: Yeah, I guess you’re right.
If you’ve made it this far in the blogpost, I commend you. The process of changing one’s mind through use of logic and reason isn’t always speedy. It often unfolds as an inarticulate, messy, and somewhat convoluted experience which can be a little frustrating to endure.
Nevertheless, the guest managed to engage in helpful dialogue in regard to her expectation. Still, I leave it to the reader to decide as to whether or not the final conclusion was a helpful one.
In my opinion, the challenging processes of self-examination and disputing unhelpful expectations is a worthwhile undertaking. This is especially relevant in regard to marriage. In closing, the authors of Creative Marriage state of their clients in this regard (pages 75-76):
[I]t would have been most difficult for them to see ahead and predict in advance the emotional and social difficulties that were going to occur—particularly when, a few years after they married, they were really different individuals, with quite different goals, from what they were when they were a seventeen-year-old bride and a twenty-year-old groom.
Setting aside the matter of contemporary standards and the ages of the clients at the time of courtship and marriage, it’s important to understand that just as the guest of the Fresh & Fit Podcast episode changed her mind within a single conversation, people can change over time.
Sometimes this includes transitioning expectations. A husband may conditionally expect his wife to never alter her wants or needs from the point of marriage. A wife may absolutistically expect that her husband will sacrifice his ability to provide and protect, favoring more familial time.
Absent systems of shame – such as religion, a close-knit community, and other arrangements which afford people an opportunity for collective responsibility and accountability – continually developing expectations may ultimately result in the dissolution of a romantic relationship.
Not always is psychotherapy a source of resolution in this regard – at least not in the interest of remaining with one’s intimate partner. Preferably, a helpful approach to unhelpful expectations will yield a mutually desirable outcome. However, not always is this the case.
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
References:
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
FreshandFit. (2024, October 16). Frank Castle arrives for 5 girls... [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/live/MtX8s5AW8wE?si=Y7Y70TOzaAm2MARH
FreshandFit [@FreshFitMiami]. (n.d.). Fresh & Fit Podcast [Official YouTube channel]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/@FreshFitMiami
Hollings, D. (2023, March 14). A patchwork quilt. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-patchwork-quilt
Hollings, D. (2024, October 18). ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/abc-model
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing
Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Conditional should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/conditional-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription
Hollings, D. (2022, May 28). Desire and disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/desire-and-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
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. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Ideal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-should-beliefs
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. (2024, July 10). Legal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/legal-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (2022, June 23). Meaningful purpose. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/meaningful-purpose
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. (2024, October 14). Mistakes. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mistakes
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Moral and ethical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/moral-and-ethical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
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. (2022, November 7). Personal ownership. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-ownership
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Preferential should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/preferential-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
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, 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. (2024, May 26). Self-determination and autonomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-determination-and-autonomy
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
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, September 24). Supply and demand. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/supply-and-demand
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2023, September 6). The absence of suffering. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-absence-of-suffering
Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, November 2). The critical A. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-critical-a
Hollings, D. (2024, September 17). The E-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-e-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 14). The is-ought problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-is-ought-problem
Hollings, D. (2024, October 20). Unconditional acceptance redux. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance-redux
Hollings, D. (2023, March 11). Unconditional life-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-life-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, February 25). Unconditional other-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-other-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, March 1). Unconditional self-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-self-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
ILoveMarcus. (2006, August 22). Show stopper. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=show%20stopper
Tirachardz. (n.d.). Upset Asian couple sit on couch in living room [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/upset-asian-couple-sit-couch-living-room_14407756.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=2&uuid=a28e4652-6ab7-498a-bce2-0591e3fb997c
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Fresh and Fit Podcast. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_and_Fit_Podcast
Comments