Love often leaves us feeling both sweet and confused. Why do we long for happiness yet keep repeating the same relationship patterns?
Why do so many relationships feel like fleeting fireworks, making long-term relationships seem challenging?
Some psychological studies have found that many widely held beliefs about love, which are considered common sense, are actually cognitive traps disguised as romance. These beliefs hinder people from maintaining healthy relationships, reduce their willingness to repair them, stunt personal growth, and cause them to evolve into unhealthy, codependent dynamics.
Today, we set aside the romantic filter and use eight psychological truths to uncover the essence of intimate relationships.
01
“If you love someone, you must love everything about them.”
At some point, the phrase “If you love someone, you must love everything about them” began circulating online. The idea is that loving someone means unconditionally accepting them, flaws and all.
Popular culture narratives revolve around the theme that “love conquers all,” from Cinderella to The Notebook. These stories constantly portray “unconditional acceptance” as the standard for true love, implying that love can tolerate anything. Protagonists in these stories overcome obstacles such as class differences, geographical distance, and terminal illness through love. However, they never address the actual conflicts and contradictions that exist in reality.
The truth is that healthy love often requires boundaries.
Psychologist John Gottman points out that healthy relationships do not involve unconditional acceptance of everything about another person. According to Gottman (1994), unconditional tolerance of negative interactions (such as verbal abuse) accelerates the breakdown of relationships rather than sustaining them. Addictive behaviors (e.g., alcoholism, smoking) should not be included in the category of “love.”
Long-term indulgence harms the relationship and deprives the other person of growth opportunities. Studies show that an indulgent partner reinforces an addict’s dependency patterns, reducing the likelihood of quitting by 40% (Meyers & Smith, 2001) and significantly lowering relationship satisfaction.
The essence of love is not static “acceptance” but dynamic “willingness to face problems together.” Constructive feedback between partners (“I hope we can work together to improve this”) enhances relationship satisfaction more than pretending nothing is wrong (Gottman, 1999).
A romantic narrative perpetuates the myth that if we truly love someone, we love everything about them. Philosopher Alain de Botton also opposes this view. In a speech titled “On Romanticism” delivered at the Sydney Opera House, he said, “The ancient Greeks offered a different explanation. They believed that love is an appreciation and liking of another person’s beautiful aspects, while their flaws can be tolerated and forgiven. However, you don’t need to love those flaws.”
02
“My partner should meet all my needs.”
This statement implies that the ideal partner must be a confidant, a lover, a business partner, and an emotional dumping ground. Otherwise, they don’t love you enough.
From a psychological perspective, this “omnipotent expectation” of a partner is essentially an idealized projection of a childhood attachment pattern. On the surface, it is a lover; however, behind it may be a search for the “ideal parent” that was missing in childhood (Bowlby, 1969).
▨ Anxious attachment style: Tends to overly idealize the partner, hoping they can fully understand and meet all one’s needs (similar to a “perfect parent”).
▨ Avoidant attachment style: Externally denies the need for an “ideal parent,” but subconsciously may still yearn for a caregiver who “will never disappoint” (using detachment as a defense against potential disappointment).
This “omnipotent fantasy” about one’s partner is often not about loving the other person, but rather about trying to use the partner to fill an emotional void from childhood. In essence, this is “instrumentalizing” the partner — treating them as a tool to satisfy one’s own needs rather than as an independent individual (Fromm, 1956).
The more “omnipotent” the expectations of a partner are, the more fragile the relationship becomes. When one partner places excessive expectations on the other (demanding that they fulfill multiple roles), it leads to prolonged stress and burnout. The expecting party also experiences ongoing disappointment due to the “gap between ideal and reality.”
Modern relationship psychology increasingly emphasizes that “good enough” relationships are sustainable. One study found that couples who can accept 15-20% dissatisfaction in their relationship stay together 3.2 times longer than those who pursue a perfect partner (Gordon, 2019).
People who have a diverse support system of friends, family, interest groups, and psychologists often have healthier relationships than those who rely solely on their partner for attention.
Having a diverse support system of friends, family, interest groups, and psychologists is healthier than relying solely on a partner.
This reminds us that the art of love is not about finding the perfect person, but rather, learning to see the whole person with imperfect eyes.
03
“Infidelity is either zero times or countless times.”
This may be a common belief, as if to say: Once someone cheats, they are “fundamentally a bad person” who “deserves no second chances.”
However, relationship therapist Esther Perel, based on her 20 years of clinical practice, tells us otherwise. “Infidelity is not simply a matter of ‘moral decay’; it reveals unspoken desires within the relationship or an individual’s sense of self-loss.” Whether someone will cheat again depends on their underlying motives.
In her book Dangerous Relationships, Perel distinguishes between motives for infidelity. Those who are chronically dissatisfied with their current relationship—the “empty type” or “revenge type”—are more likely to cheat again (Perel, 2017). This tendency is primarily related to unmet emotional needs, rigid relationship patterns, and psychological defense mechanisms.
▨ “Empty-type” cheaters: They have felt emotionally empty and lonely for a long time or believe their partner cannot provide a deep emotional connection. For them, cheating becomes a “temporary remedy” to fill the emptiness in their hearts rather than a real solution (Perel, 2017). If the original relationship does not improve or if the individual does not develop self-awareness and communication skills, they will continue to seek external emotional support.
▨ “Revenge-driven” cheaters: They use infidelity to express anger, punish their partner, or regain control in the relationship. However, the act of infidelity itself exacerbates hostility and distrust, creating a cycle of “revenge—guilt—more severe conflict.” These individuals may view infidelity as a “negotiation tool” rather than as a genuine desire to end the relationship (Perel, 2017).
In contrast, those who self-report having “exploratory motives” (seeking to reshape their self-identity or explore life possibilities) have an infidelity recidivism rate of only 19%.
After helping hundreds of couples navigate infidelity crises, Perel found that those who cheat “often seek another version of themselves, not another partner” (Perel, 2017).
Perel is not encouraging infidelity. She simply urges people to move beyond black-and-white moral judgments and consider the deeper messages buried beneath the pain. “Reducing infidelity to sex and lies may be tempting, but I prefer to see it as an entry point for understanding the complexities of relationships and the boundaries we use to constrain them. It is crucial for both partners to understand why infidelity occurs and what it signifies, whether they choose to end the relationship or continue living together.”
As Perel puts it: “Love is always complicated, and infidelity is even more so. However, infidelity is also an unparalleled window into the cracks in the human heart.”
04:
“Happy couples never argue.”
Many people fear conflict, viewing it as a sign that a relationship is breaking down. When conflicts arise, the first instinct is often to avoid them, maintain superficial harmony, or wait for the other person to “back down.”
However, psychological research suggests that avoiding conflict is more dangerous than confronting it.
Gottman’s “Four Horsemen Theory” identifies four destructive patterns of interaction in intimate relationships: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. These behaviors are strong predictors of divorce or separation.
▨ Criticism: Attacking a partner’s character or personality rather than specific behaviors. For example: “You’re always so selfish; you never consider my feelings!”
▨ Contempt: Expressing superiority through sarcasm, mockery, eye rolls, belittling, or insults (e.g., “You’re so stupid; you’re almost as bad as my boss”). This is the most destructive of the Four Horsemen.
▨ Defensiveness: Shifting blame, making excuses, or retaliating during conflict. For example: “It’s not my fault; you’re the one who didn’t understand!”
▨ Cold War: Completely shutting down communication during conflict through silence, avoidance, or giving the cold shoulder (e.g., refusing eye contact or leaving the room).
Gottman found that, by tracking 3,000 couples, those who could express dissatisfaction mildly had a 40% lower divorce rate than couples who “never argued” (Gottman, 1999).
The next time you face conflict, express your emotions bravely and calmly. For example, describe facts using sensory language: “You didn’t wash the dishes for three days last week, and I’m angry!” or expressing deeper needs: “I need to feel that we are partners.” Invite collaboration: “How do you think we can adjust this better?”
Here’s a quick tip: Gottman proposed the “5:1 golden ratio.” In a stable relationship, positive interactions, such as praise and active listening, should occur at least five times more frequently than negative interactions, such as criticism and cold shoulders.
05
“Not replying immediately means you don’t love me.”
After asking around, I found that many people hold this view. This misconception may stem from the following psychological mechanisms:
▨ The need for instant gratification. In modern society, instant messaging tools have made us accustomed to immediate feedback. We have mistakenly applied this sense of immediacy to emotional needs, leading to the belief that love should also be instantly responsive.
▨ Lack of security: Some people feel more secure when their partner responds quickly. Delayed responses may trigger fears of being ignored or unvalued, especially in individuals with anxious attachment styles.
Editor’s note: This topic may be offensive to some readers.
▨ Social comparison: Observing others (such as friends or couples on social media) engaging in “instant response” behavior may create social pressure, leading one to believe that this behavior is “normal” or “expected.”
In fact, the quality of the response is more important than the speed. Attachment theory suggests that attentiveness and sincerity are better predictors of relationship satisfaction than response speed.
Allowing for “delayed responses” may lead to a more enduring relationship. This means both parties have personal space and time, and respect each other’s independence. Being able to accept delays is also a sign of trust, and both people involved will feel more comfortable with this approach.
06
“Men aren’t bad; women just don’t love them.”
This saying has been around for a long time and has recently received psychological explanations. For example, girls who were disciplined as children are more likely to be attracted to rebellious and unreliable “bad boys” (also known as “jerks”) because they see the “suppressed” parts of themselves in these men and want to compensate for them.
However, this conclusion overlooks the complexity of human mating strategies and contradicts a large body of scientific research. For example:
▨ Some are merely “short-term attractions”: Evolutionary psychology has found that certain “bad boy” traits, such as adventure, confidence, and rebellion, may be more attractive in short-term relationships because these traits suggest genetic advantages, such as high testosterone levels and stress resilience. However, in long-term relationships, stability, reliability, and empathy are key predictors of happiness (Buss, 1994). Women (and men) generally place greater emphasis on responsibility, emotional stability, and resource potential when considering marriage or long-term partners (Fletcher et al., 1999).
▨ The definition of “bad” is often misunderstood. What is truly attractive may not be “bad” traits, such as selfishness or violence, but rather the high social confidence, humor, or adventurous spirit that accompanies them (Jonason et al., 2009). These traits remain attractive even when separated from their negative components.
However, genuine antisocial behavior, such as deception or abuse, significantly reduces attractiveness in long-term relationships (Buss & Schmitt, 2019).
▨ “Good guys” are mislabeled. The idea that “good equals boring” is a common misconception, but research shows that sincere, friendly men (“good guys”) can spark romantic attraction in long-term relationships, especially if they have a sense of humor and social skills (Li et al., 2002).
▨ Most women ultimately choose emotionally stable and communicative partners. As traditional gender roles weaken and women become more economically independent, the demand for pure “bad boys” decreases (Eastwick et al., 2014). Modern women prefer “balanced partners” — those who provide emotional security while also possessing personal charm.
While taking risks and breaking conventions remains appealing, being willing to take responsibility for mistakes and being good at communication are equally important.
07
“Men are increasingly lacking in commitment.”
This is an exaggerated cultural narrative and gender stereotype. Although social media amplifies stories about “irresponsible men,” many men actually seek stable, long-term relationships and prioritize family life.
While some men hesitate before marriage, many women do too.
According to attachment theory, commitment behaviors are more closely tied to early life experiences and feelings of security than to gender. Individuals with anxious or avoidant attachment styles may exhibit commitment fears, and these traits are distributed equally across genders (Fraley & Shaver, 2021).
Additionally, we must consider the influence of social pressure and economic factors on this issue.
Research has found that economic pressures, such as high housing prices and unemployment risks, may delay men’s decisions to make traditional commitments, like marriage. However, this is not a “lack of commitment”; rather, it is a cautious approach to responsibility (Sassler & Miller, 2017).
Societal expectations regarding gender roles are also evolving. Men are no longer solely defined as “economic providers,” and some may feel uncertain or fearful about long-term committed relationships due to these changes. Traditional gender roles have required men to suppress their emotional needs. This has led some men to use “avoidance of commitment” to mask their fear of intimate relationships when, in reality, they require external support.
From a psychological perspective, this misconception stems from the oversimplification of complex social behaviors as inherent gender differences. Changes in willingness to commit are the result of the interaction between structural factors (economic and cultural) and individual psychology.
Instead of labeling men, it is more productive to focus on helping everyone build healthier intimate relationships through social support, such as socioeconomic policies and mental health services.
08:
“You will find your other half.”
Contemporary people’s obsession with the “soulmate” concept is largely influenced by romantic narratives, from Titanic to K-dramas. These narratives reinforce the ideas of “destiny” and “true love,” suggesting that there is a “right person.” Linguistically, we often say “finding your other half,” as if our lives are incomplete and must be completed by a partner.
In reality, as Fromm said, love is a verb, not a noun. A good relationship depends on mutual growth, not just initial “compatibility.” Relationships require effort, time, and dedication and are built on self-awareness.
Psychotherapist Duygu Balan also points out that not everyone is suited for romance, nor does everyone desire a relationship. There is no standard for being suitable for romance.
“Romance requires investment, interest, and a willingness to put in the effort to maintain a relationship—and that’s not easy. Others cannot do this for us, so if we are unable or unwilling to make this effort, we may never find the right person.”
Final Thoughts:
Why are these myths worth debunking?
They oversimplify love by portraying it as a fairy tale where happiness depends on “meeting the right person” and suffering stems from “loving the wrong person.” However, psychology tells us that love requires mutual shaping, clear self-awareness, and proactive effort, rather than passively waiting for fate to decide.
May you always possess the “ability to love.”
