That shatters the “happily ever after” romance of our childhood. But that little sentence is a lie. We wanted “emotional security” as a permanent state. As an instant solution. We sign a contract, and then the matter is settled.
But there’s nothing right about that, because we end up achieving the exact opposite.
For all new readers, I recommend “Hamster wheel”, 3x Diamond, and Two perspectives on the world—and little overlap as a starting point, since I don’t want to start completely from the beginning.
So why is it a mistake, or perhaps even a paradox or an oxymoron?
Let’s start briefly with our basic emotional and psychological needs: connection and self-expression. And from connectedness comes our emotional security, self-worth, and self-determination, which then manifest in self-expression. So both basic needs are interconnected and serve the system. The system is the “pack” in which we live. The pack is meant to reach its optimal state. This happens when we can bring our uniqueness into the context of connectedness.
The starting point of a relationship is that we see, hear, understand, and touch one another. Which also means that we allow ourselves to be seen, heard, understood, and touched. We must reveal ourselves without filters, masks, or roles. Our true identity, not a curated version.
The “happily ever after” approach is more like ownership—essentially a contract. And once the contract is signed, the other person can’t get out. Then I show my true face. My real intention.
So we create a contractual arrangement to generate security. This is true only insofar as we use the same word for two very different things. But what we mean here is not “emotional security,” but rather a sense of security in the external world—something I can enforce and control.
We confuse security with control. We think that if we can control something—and thus also enforce it—then we have security.
That is the opposite of closeness. And thus the opposite of a relationship, and therefore also the ultimate destroyer of true security.
True (emotional or psychological) security exists only in genuine connection. When we give each other a relationship. And the word “give” already makes it clear: as soon as I force it, it is no longer a gift. So the value lies in the fact that it is voluntary. In another person’s decision to say to me, “You are valuable, and your needs matter to me.”
We need this space where we can be seen, heard, understood, and touched.
A relationship is the reality of the here and now. I can’t build a relationship in advance. It’s the effort and care that we both put into it. A relationship can easily be destroyed by one person, but it can only be actively built and nurtured by both.
Security comes from the experience of choosing, day after day, to invest in this relationship.
No instant-forever solution, but a daily miracle. A daily treasure. But as soon as we try to freeze this moment in time so it stays the same, the warmth dies.
Stay warm and alive.
Leave a Reply