Dating : What an incredible and well-written article.

What an incredible and well-written article. Your prose is impressive and your point is enlightening. Thank you for making this distinction we all (should) realize over time.

This is something I learned with clarity around two years ago, after a long and wild dating phase. I saw bits and pieces of that “perfect » in just about everyone I dated: the world view, the understanding, the delicate balance of spontaneous adventuring and wanting to stay home with a movie. These things aren’t difficult to find in people. We, as humans, gravitate toward the “perfect.” We sense it. We crave it.

This article begs the follow-up question: “Okay, but doesn’t this ‘honing’ mean ‘changing’? Trying to change someone is bad, and ‘honing the imperfections to perfections’ sounds like trying to change a person at a fundamental level.”

The follow-up answer is a tricky one. This is one of the lines we walk in relationships: “changing » versus “honing.” At the core, both words mean change. We’re always changing. Of course both actions bring a change of some sort.

What matters is intent and circumstance. Honing comes with the point in this article: confirming first that you and your partner are compatible where it matters (i.e., no dealbreakers), and then working on the minor things that will decrease bad friction for the long haul (i.e., letting your partner know you’d like to eat dinner together once a week because it makes you feel closer). The minor things aren’t dealbreakers and can therefore be honed, which is really just a process of adjusting to being with each other past the honeymoon phase. It’s a necessary and ongoing responsibility, and it’s “change” no matter which way you look at it.

Changing someone in the bad sense goes something more like this: “I really don’t like that my partner thinks [sensitive topic] is okay. I believe it’s not okay and my partner thinking that way is a dealbreaker, so my partner either needs to change or this relationship won’t work.” This is the type of change we want to avoid because it’s change at a deeper, more fundamental level. Beliefs don’t just disappear. Ways of life don’t just disappear. These fundamental opinions, beliefs, and ways of life may change over time, but they’re not foods in a buffet you can decide to leave off your plate. This level of a person’s being is a level that defines that person; trying to change someone at this level is difficult, lengthy, unpredictable, and a waste of your time. There are billions of people out there; if the one to your right isn’t your cup of tea, find another one. Learn to move on when you’ve hit a concrete wall; don’t whip out the wrecking ball. A person needs to want to change — the possibility of losing a partner should not be a catalyst for that change.

In summation, “honing” and “changing” are both change at their cores. Honing is helping someone become a better version of themselves by opening their eyes to things they might not see — it’s gentle, honest, fair. Changing (in the bad sense) is generally something we want someone to do as quickly as possible whether or not the person in question wants to change, and this is therefore entirely unfair.

When we decide to stay with a partner for longer than the honeymoon phase, honing our personalities to be less abrasive when together decreases friction that can lead to fighting — fighting that usually pertains to minor things, like leaving the seat up. It’s like sanding wood: you can’t just saw a log in half to make it smooth; you have to sand away the rough edges bit by bit until you can run your fingers across its surface without getting a splinter.