The perfection we saw at the beginning was only part of the picture

One evening, my wife and I were invited to a reception.

A man started flirting with her even though it was fairly obvious that we had come together. Perhaps he took me for her brother. Perhaps he simply chose not to see what bothered him.

My wife is also my best friend. When she pointed out his behavior to me, she joked: "You see, some people know how to appreciate the product."

I replied that he was mainly appreciating the packaging. He saw a smiling, elegant woman for a few minutes. I also knew the reality on the ground. If he wanted, I could give him some information before he turned an impression into a certainty.

We laughed.

I was not saying that my wife was a bad person. If we are still together, it is because she has many positive qualities that I love and because we have learned to grow together.

I was only saying that a person glimpsed in their most favorable light is not yet a person we know.

At the beginning of a relationship, we sometimes look at the hull and imagine the whole ship. A look, a few confidences and the intensity of our desire become the proof of a perfection that we ourselves largely completed.

Then life gives us the information that was missing.

The perfection of the beginning was not always a lie. It was often a partial presentation.

Each person first shows what they know how to offer at their best

A first meeting also resembles a job interview.

We choose our clothes, watch our tone, listen more and highlight our gentleness, our ambition or our humor. We do not spontaneously present our mess, our impatience and our resentments.

This selection is not automatically manipulation. It is natural to want to be liked. We show a true part of ourselves, the one we want to put forward.

The problem begins when the other person takes this part for the whole, or when we deliberately use this version to obtain the relationship before abandoning what it promised.

The attentive person of the beginning was not necessarily fake. They simply had not yet shown us what would appear with fatigue, frustration and acquired security.

Knowing someone therefore requires something other than checking whether they can be wonderful during courtship. We must discover what they become when the desire to obtain gives way to the duty to maintain.

Emotion illuminates a moment

When we are attracted to someone, emotion enlarges what feeds it.

We notice their smile, the similarities and the attentions that confirm our hope. Less pleasant information seems small or temporary.

A strong emotion says: "I like this moment. This person awakens something in me."

It does not yet say: "We will manage money, respect our differences, stay loyal under pressure and repair our offenses."

We sometimes ask a present feeling to certify future behaviors it has never observed.

Emotion is not false. It becomes misleading when we give it the status of complete proof.

We lend our definitions to the person we desire

We easily assume that a person who resembles us on one point will resemble us on the others.

He likes children, so he will be an attentive parent. She works hard, so she will know how to build with us. He talks about respect, so he will protect our boundaries.

Between what is observed and what is concluded, we add a great deal of ourselves.

We lend the other person our definition of the words fidelity, family, commitment or support. When their behaviors reveal another definition, we feel we have been deceived.

There may have been deception. There may also have been a question no one asked and an answer our imagination wrote alone.

Our past relationships should improve our questions, not condemn the new person. What had we not wanted to see? What had we assumed without checking? What boundaries had we abandoned for fear of losing?

Experience becomes useful when it makes our enthusiasm more attentive.

A flaw is not always an incompatibility

Every person has behaviors we will not like.

A flaw is not judged solely because it displeases us. Let us look at its nature, its frequency, its consequences and the way the person reacts when it is named.

Do they make an effort? Do they understand the price paid by the other? Does the behavior decrease or settle in? Can it be organized, compensated for or worked on?

The compatible person is not the one whose every characteristic pleases us. It is also the one with whom difficulties can be acknowledged without continually destroying the peace of the home.

But not all discoveries carry the same weight. An annoying habit is not violence. A mess is not a repeated contempt for boundaries.

Adult love does not say: "Everyone has flaws, so I must accept everything."

It asks: "What does this behavior produce? Is there a willingness to correct it? What will my life become if it stays exactly the same?"

Discovering obliges us neither to condemn nor to close our eyes

Discovering a difference can make us believe that the whole story was false. It can also push us to minimize the information in order to protect our first impression. Both responses avoid the same work: looking at what this reality concretely changes in the present choice.

Let us imagine that we discover a way of managing money very different from our own. The disagreement does not automatically announce failure. It calls for a conversation about resources, priorities, commitments and shared decisions. The way this conversation is possible tells us as much as the initial preference.

On the other hand, a lie about a significant debt does not become a simple difference of character. We must distinguish what requires learning to cooperate from what affects the possibility of consenting to the life being proposed. The same words — "we are not alike" — are not enough to cover these two situations.

Choosing the whole person does not mean accepting every conduct. It means allowing them the possibility of being real, then deciding with that reality rather than with the promise of perfection from the beginning. We can discover a boundary and build; we can also discover an incompatibility and recognize it without reducing the other person to a worthless being.

Saying the other person has changed requires an investigation

Several realities can hide behind this impression.

The person has genuinely changed. They have stopped the efforts of the beginning. We have discovered an old facet. Our own behavior has changed their way of living the relationship.

These possibilities can coexist.

Which behaviors have disappeared? Which are new? What had we already observed but minimized? What have we ourselves stopped doing?

This investigation does not mechanically distribute fault. It prevents an important decision from resting on too simple a story.

While we are discovering the other, they are also discovering us: our relationship to money, our sensitivity, our family, our silences and our ability to acknowledge a mistake.

Instead of demanding the return of the ideal person, we can ask: "What did each of us let appear or disappear?"

Novelty must be replaced by real reasons

At the beginning, every message and every confidence gives the impression of entering a new world.

This energy naturally diminishes. We cannot eternally meet for the first time the person we live with.

The relay comes from maintained positive qualities, projects, sincere apologies, visible corrections and the ability to still create living moments.

Being realistic does not kill the dream. It leaves enough room for reality so that our love is addressed to a person rather than to a creation of our imagination.

At first glance, we mainly choose a possibility. With time, we meet a more complete person: their qualities over the long term, their flaws, their efforts, their refusals and their way of repairing.

That is when the choice gains depth.

Time does not only serve to make the relationship last. It serves to make our choice more informed.

What did I really know at the beginning?

Which part of the other had I taken for their whole?

What answer did my imagination give without a question?

Does this flaw reveal a difference or an incompatibility?

Which current behavior confirms or corrects my first impression?

Can I choose the whole person rather than the initial presentation?