We don’t find the ideal partner, we invent them
Ulrich Clement is a German psychotherapist, psychologist, and author known for his work
on relationships, sexuality, and psychotherapy. He has written several books and articles on
these topics and is often sought after for his expertise in couples therapy and sex therapy.
Clement is known for his pragmatic and realistic approach to love and relationships,
emphasizing the importance of communication, understanding, and acceptance in intimate
partnerships.
Interview with Professor Ulrich Clement
FOCUS-Magazine-Redaktor Bernhard Borgeest
We don’t find the ideal partner, we invent them,” says therapist Ulrich Clement.
Professor Clement, what is love?
Since humans exist, they talk about love yet cannot grasp it. We could only define it poetically. Love is something irrational, something that creates an inescapable spell. It is a gift, and it is fate. And it’s not just something beautiful. Love relationships can end in murder and manslaughter.
Does love change?
It begins with the feeling of eternity. But it’s not eternal. And now it depends. Many perceive this as a great disappointment. Then the guilty party is sought. There are accusations against the partner or against oneself. The wiser variant is to acknowledge the change and to say: Love in its passionate form is a significant boost, but for duration, something else is needed. It’s about bonding and reliability. The initial fire has nothing to do with reliability but with madness. One must redefine love; one can nurture and shape it.
Can we learn to love?
For example, one can understand that to maintain love, one must give more than take. Just a little more. If you give endlessly more, you put yourself and the recipient in a bad position. In critical situations, one should rather be the one who gives in. But not constantly yielding. In that sense, giving is more of a blessing than receiving.
What are we looking for?
We are looking for an emotional home. In therapy, I often hear: I want to be received; I want to come home. In many relationships, there is also the thought of building something together. This gives strength and creates a sense of ‘we.’ It has nothing to do with feelings of love at first but comes from the fact that there is something familiar. We write a book together; we build a company. We have children. One can only find the necessary conditions for love, not the sufficient ones.
What do you think when you hear: I have found my great love, the ideal partner?
As a therapist, I mostly hear that in the past tense. He or she was a great love, but then it turns out he’s a crook, or she’s a witch.
How much does the romantic idea of true love hinder us from loving?
It is the most common danger to think that we should be everything to each other. The ideal parent, the ideal sexual partner, the ideal conversation partner, and so on. We do not find an ideal partner; we invent them. If we have the wisdom and the freedom to recognize that the other can be different from how we would like them to be, then we are a big step further. So, does it make little sense to want to change the behavior or even the essence of the other?
That is one of the big mistakes made in relationships. People get into arguments with friends: Look, the woman throws money away. Or: He flirts around the neighborhood. But that will largely remain the same. You can endure it, you can see it calmly, but you can also be happy that the partner is just like that, incredibly generous or lively. I am a big fan of the idea of not only enduring these differences but also affirming and appreciating them.
Would that be deep tolerance?
Tolerance must go even further. One thing is that I cannot change my partner. But he may change himself. He develops. And then? You have to inquire. Where are you right now? I think interim assessments are good. Asking each other every six months: What still applies between us? Most people don’t do that, even though it would be advisable. There are new stages of life. Priorities change. Children, illness, unemployment, affairs. These are stress tests for relationships. If it succeeds in adjusting to them, we have good cards. Much has to be accepted. One must differentiate between soluble and eternal problems.
Is it inevitable that the closer someone gets to me, the stranger they become, that I perceive their otherness more clearly?
They become stranger when I want them close when I want to force them into closeness. The question always boils down to whether there can be a life without disappointment and bad feelings and anger, loving without suffering. But that doesn’t exist. That would be a pubertal, childish expectation that one could manage a partnership without trouble. Or a partnership full of consensual decisions. If a couple has to decide for or against something, the no usually prevails. Regardless of whether it’s about having a child, buying a house, or traveling the world, the no is stronger. Not because it’s the better decision. It’s physics. It takes two for a yes; one is enough for a no.
How important is sex for relationships?
In the beginning, sex is usually very important. And then, a widespread mistake comes into play, namely that sex should remain as it was at the beginning. What an idea! However, change is not bad. The fire may decrease, but the experience increases. You know each other better. The Canadian Peggy Kleinplatz studied people over 60 who had been together for at least 25 years and said: Our sex life is good. She found that they value other things. Integrity and a sense of connection. They perceive their sexuality as more mature and more profound.
Does tenderness replace passion?
At the beginning of a relationship and also later, you can have both. The point is that older couples do not perceive it as a lack if they do not have strong erections or multiple orgasms.
But what if one wants and the other does not?
Then the two have a problem.
An eternal problem?
Not necessarily. Let’s take the case where the woman wants more than the man. This happens more and more often. She threatens: Then I’ll find someone else. He says: I won’t be blackmailed. Those are the dialogues. As long as they fight about the topic of sex, it only escalates. But if she says it’s not blackmail but sheer necessity, and if the man feels how offended or even humiliated the woman feels, or if he admits to being afraid of not getting an erection, and she responds, I don’t care about that, then movement comes into play. When the couple goes from the level of fighting to that of vulnerability, conflicts can be resolved, and alternatives can be found. If the two are worth something to each other, it won’t fail because of sex.
This can also mean opening up the relationship?
They will physically find each other again, or they will separate, or they will open the relationship. Or they even live polyamorously and bring in a third person.
The number three has explosive power.
Three is always an uncomfortable matter.
Do we face the difficulty of wanting to find attachment and desire in one and the same person? Are we encountering the dilemma of monogamy?
Yes, that is the dilemma. None of the ambivalent sides, attachment and desire, are wrong. The need to find a home as true as the need to feel oneself in a foreign place. Few find it easy. If I realize my partner has something else going on, I can get bitter. But I can also think that if I accept it, then I affirm it better instead of constantly reproaching him for it.
But where does such a powerful feeling of jealousy go?
That is the crucial question. Without it, everything would be easy. It cannot be removed