What is your definition of a healthy relationship, and how do you work together to achieve it?

[Quogha]

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

It's almost entirely about communication for me. If a couple can peacefully disagree on any subject, that tends to help enormously. If both are capable of being the bigger person and deescalate conflicts when the other is being unreasonable, that can make a world of difference.

Also trust, but I think that's something established through frequent and very open communication that leads to deep mutual understanding. We can't be suspicious of what we don't know if we have deep mutual understanding of each other.

Just health in general as well. Physical health is important but even more important from my perspective is mental health. Relationships can start to deteriorate if one or both partners are suffering mental health problems so it really helps to stay on top of each other's mental health.

This is also a bit controversial but I do think relationships need a designated leader just for the decisions that impact both partners in the relationship, or in the case of marriage, the entire household/family. I don't think that leader has to be the man. Traditionally it's the man and a lot of women trained to think traditionally might be upset if they have to be the leader of the household and deal with that responsibility of protecting and providing for the family. Yet if the woman can handle being the leader and not be disappointed, props to her.

Either way, I think there has to be a designated leader with the trusted authority for those executive decisions that impact everyone. If there is no designated leader, then conflicts that can't be negotiated to a point of unanimous agreement can't be resolved, and I suspect such couples will tend to find that missing leader in the form of a judge in a divorce court. So essential in my opinion is to have a designated leader.

[Quogha]

I really like this answer because you didn’t describe just one thing. It truly goes to show that a healthy relationship involves many factors between two people. I agree that with you on all of your points. Including having a leader of the relationship, which I had never considered before. However, I must add that in regards to having a leader in the relationship, many couples choose to split the leadership role between them. For example, one party may lead and direct all decisions regarding finances, while the other may take charge of planning and organization of hosting or attending social events.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Cheers! On splitting leadership, that's actually a sign of a competent hierarchy from my perspective. For example, a competent captain of a ship might delegate all leadership responsibility over military affairs to his military officer, and all leadership responsibility over medical affairs to his medical officer.

When the whole team is competent, it should become difficult to tell at a glance who actually is the ultimate leader since everyone becomes a leader in their own right. Yet suppose there's a conflict between the metaphorical military officer and the medical officer. The military officer wants to attack a weakened military base while the medical officer wants to stop at a friendly port because the crew are getting very ill. This is where having the captain at the top of the hierarchy to resolve this conflict and make the final decision and take ultimate responsibility for the decision (doing the best he/she can to protect their crew from any consequences and never blame them for his/her decision) is vital as I see it.

So I think a healthy relationship always needs that metaphorical designated captain to have final say on matters that affect everyone, although the other might resemble a first officer and be a leader in their own right as well as most trusted advisor. They also will become the captain when the captain is away, incapacitated, or dead.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I think even traditionalists get this part wrong. They seem to conceive the traditional household as king + servant (supreme leader with subservient follower), not king + queen (two competent leaders merely with one having final say and responsibility on decisions that affect both). That kind of leader + servant model might have applied to working class households that demanded maximum division of labor between two people who aren't well-rounded in their skillsets, but it doesn't seem the case of the traditional educated and noble classes. The traditional division in those cases is far more nuanced with a division of even leadership roles as you mentioned, but there is still a designated one at the top of the hierarchy to resolve disputes.