Relationship Needs
Email Andrea at afoster8@uh.edu or booklady@loveinloveout.com or leave a message at 713.301.9843.

In communications studies as well as psychological studies, there is something called the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs that describes what individuals need most. You are probably familiar with the very basic needs: food, water, and shelter. These are things that we, as human beings, for the most part cannot do without.

Abraham Maslow includes bodily needs as the most basic: we need to eat, excrete, sweat, have sex. These things are part of being human, and, also, of being an animal, which humans are. Maslow places security needs next in importance. He includes shelter and the need to be protected, in general, as well as a freedom from fear and the necessity for law. Love and affection then come third in his hierarchy, and here is where I disagree with Dr. M. I think love and the need for affection are as basic as food and protection. In fact, love is protection and gives security. That is why we seek it so avidly and why the search for love is so primary.

Maslow’s concept is that once the more basic needs are met, one can go on to seek the higher needs, like love and self-esteem. As a woman, I can say that security and love are on the same level. Women are often taught the premise to find love, because love (and marriage) will bring the security we need (supposedly). This is why women are so stuck on commitment, and men are not. The acculturation of women has been to seek love in order to obtain security, which is why women and the search for a wealthy man are so often linked. This is still promoted in our media today, so is it any wonder that we continue to live by this ancient, even barbaric standard?

No wonder, there are battles between men and women and feminists and those with old-fashioned values. The issue is not so much who is right, but that those who hold the same values seek each other out. Instead, we often have the case of apples seeking oranges, or individuals who are oranges griping because they have just gone out with an apple. Fruit is good in general. No need to gripe. Just go out with a similar fruit!!

I personally have found a lot of value in the foreign bride business so that American men with old-fashioned values can seek and find women from other countries with similar values to theirs. The men work and provide the bacon; the women stay home, have babies, and care for the kids. There is nothing inherently wrong with this arrangement. It simply indicates a sharing of duties based on natural proclivities of the genders. However, there are still "old-fashioned" women living in the United States too. In fact, Muslims and those of religious faiths other than Christians also adhere to the model that makes the man responsible for entire households full of people, including extended families. This puts a lot of pressure on the male to be successful in business and a lot of pressure on the female to ensure that the children are well cared for and that the household runs smoothly.

Problems arise when the new world meets the old. In this new world, females are just as likely, and indeed, just as capable of being the household providers. Our world includes many single individuals who have learned how to care for themselves and who have successful and fulfilling careers. The gender roles can get switched, and males can learn nurturing by becoming stay-at-home dads, or single dads can learn more traditionally feminine roles. Likewise, single mothers learn how to “do it all” and take on the role of breadwinner and housekeeper/nurturer. The world is much more complex these days, with many more configurations of what a household can encompass.

As you can see, however, there is always the money side—that pays for the household—linked with the nurturer/caretaker side. Security and love are linked, and money is linked to both of those, so is it any wonder that there is much criticism about love and money and the gender roles associated with these?

My view is that relationships and marriage are inherently about money or at least an exchange of needs. We are bartering for our needs. If you doubt the linkage of money and relationship, just go on a date. When it comes time to pay for the date, who pays? Every day, I get questions about this.

Custom has it that the male pays, at least for the first few dates. Then as a relationship ensues, the female begins to add to the pot. More and more, I find males feeling that if women can be so independent, that they should pay their own way, and so they hold out for the Dutch treat. As an aging Hippie and a believer in fair play, I have always believed in the Dutch treat, just because I have always believed that is fair. I never saw a reason why men should pay for everything. At the very least, my belief is that couples should switch off who pays for dates—that’s assuring that there IS a second date. But that’s my belief and not how it really is.

What IS clear is that men are now becoming disconnected from their traditional roles as providers and protectors. Because females are indeed able to pay for and provide shelter for themselves, males no longer feel the need to provide for them. Thus, men think, “why should I have to pay for her on the date? She takes care of herself.” However, there is such a thing as generosity.

Are you generous or are you cheap, and how do you want to portray yourself? Moreover, who ARE you, really? If you are cheap, my belief is, let’s get it out in the open, because then I can decide NOT to choose you. Cheap is not attractive. It shows a hard heart and an isolated heart. I still believe personally in paying my own way, but generosity is a value I would like to see in someone I date. How about you?

This discussion is really leading to a broader topic. Relationships, marriage, and dating are about an exchange of goods and services. Don’t kid yourself that they are not. If someone pays for something, they expect reciprocation. It’s only fair. This is why men who pay for dates expect sex, ladies. If you aren’t going to pay, they expect some thing. (Bake them a pie.)

In metaphysical circles, this is called an equal exchange of energy, and you create karma if the exchange is unequal. Another way of saying it is that, if you just take a free meal and don’t give something back in exchange, you owe that other person—for life—until you return something of equal value. In some cultures, this is called “an eye for an eye”, and you owe this beyond a lifetime, until you pay it back to someone. 

In my mother’s world, it’s a “pie for a pie”. If somebody invites her to dinner, she is honor bound to invite them back at some time. If they give her a gift of fruit, she bakes them a pie with it and brings the pie back. You know what else this is called, folks? Common courtesy.

Think about how intertwined relationship is with money, expectation, and reciprocation. Relationship often goes awry when two people have differing views of what is appropriate reciprocal behavior. If you are taking money or meals or gifts from people, you had better know they expect SOME thing in return. It may be they expect a thank you, or it may be they expect faithfulness or honesty, but everything is a valid currency of exchange in relationship, even the shortest relationship—like a date.