Would you change yourself for a long-time partner?

[PoetPhilosopher]

Imagine that you have a long time romantic partner who you love very much. One day, they tell you that you are lacking in one area involving your identity, and they want you to change it for them. Would you do it? Why or why not?

This is a hypothetical scenario that can potentially spark a lot of debate. Identity is a complex concept that encompasses our sense of self, our values, our beliefs, our goals, and our relationships. Changing any aspect of our identity can have significant consequences for ourselves and others.

So... some people may argue that changing an area of your identity for your partner is a sign of love, compassion, and growth. They may say that it shows that you care about your partner's feelings and opinions, and that you are willing to adapt and improve yourself for the sake of the relationship. They may also say that it can help you discover new aspects of yourself and expand your horizons.

Other people may argue that changing an area of your identity for your partner is a potential sign of betrayal, submission, and loss. They may say that it shows that you do not respect or value yourself, and that you are letting your partner control you. They may also say that it can harm your self-esteem, your authenticity, and your happiness.

What do you think? How would you react if your partner asked you to change an area of your identity for them?

Another thing to note... I've been noticing that RF sometimes does better debating these abstract concepts with specific examples. So I will provide some examples...

One example is Jenny-Anne Bishop, a trans woman who transitioned at the age of 63, after being married to her wife Elen for 38 years. Jenny-Anne said that she had always felt like a woman trapped in a man's body, but she suppressed her feelings and lived as a man to avoid losing her wife and family. She only decided to transition after Elen gave her an ultimatum: either live as a woman or leave. Elen said that she loved Jenny-Anne as a person, but not as a man, and that she wanted to be with a woman. Jenny-Anne agreed to transition, and the couple stayed together as lesbians.

Another example is David Kaufman, a trans man who transitioned at the age of 70, after being married to his wife Cathy for 46 years. David said that he had always felt like a man trapped in a woman's body, but he hid his feelings and lived as a woman to please his wife and society. He only decided to transition after Cathy encouraged him to do so, saying that she wanted him to be happy and authentic. Cathy said that she loved David as a person, but not as a woman, and that she wanted to be with a man. David agreed to transition, and the couple stayed together as heterosexuals.

My stance: Okay, now it's time to provide my own answer to such an issue. Here it is:

I have thought deeply about the hypothetical issue of whether I'd change myself for someone else, and I have observed that it rarely leads to a happy outcome, including with the lives of the two people I mentioned. I have seen cases where people changed for their partners, and they ended up regretting it or losing their relationship anyway. Based on that, I have decided to take a stance that respects my personal autonomy, and views any completely unsolicited requests to change myself as a potential red flag in a relationship. I believe that I deserve to be loved for who I am, not for who someone else wants me to be. So, if there is ever a question of whether to keep the relationship in such a scenario, it will likely be myself ending the relationship, and not them.

 

[Quintessence]

It's interesting that the scenario presented presumes a "romantic" parter. This could just as well apply to a deep relationship with a parent, a friend, a teacher, a priest. What about "romantic" would change the dimensions, I wonder? The aromantic asexuals among us are wondering.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It's interesting that the scenario presented presumes a "romantic" parter. This could just as well apply to a deep relationship with a parent, a friend, a teacher, a priest. What about "romantic" would change the dimensions, I wonder? The aromantic asexuals among us are wondering.

I actually need some more time to think about that. But I'd say that there are a few similarities with a non-romantic person, but also some differences. For example, if you change yourself for a distant family member, it could only involve having to alter the way you act the few hours a month you're around them, rather than having to live with them, where it might be a different story. I'd say it's less personal to change one's self for a non-romantic person, but it also depends on specific scenarios, which I haven't had much chance to think through. There's also the question of big changes, and how far one should go.

 

[sun rise]

I know a couple that faced the same situation as the OP. They stayed together.

But much less dramatically, being married (or together) for a long time would almost inevitably mean change of some sort for the other. That was certainly true for me. I was, in the terms of my youth, spoiled by being an only child born to a 40-year old mother and was consequently doted upon and had my whims indulged.

My wife was going to have none of that so I grew up and changed.

 

[Yerda]

I'd change my behaviour for someone I love. I doubt I change a part of my identity even if I wanted to.

 

[exchemist]

Imagine that you have a long time romantic partner who you love very much. One day, they tell you that you are lacking in one area involving your identity, and they want you to change it for them. Would you do it? Why or why not?

This is a hypothetical scenario that can potentially spark a lot of debate. Identity is a complex concept that encompasses our sense of self, our values, our beliefs, our goals, and our relationships. Changing any aspect of our identity can have significant consequences for ourselves and others.

So... some people may argue that changing an area of your identity for your partner is a sign of love, compassion, and growth. They may say that it shows that you care about your partner's feelings and opinions, and that you are willing to adapt and improve yourself for the sake of the relationship. They may also say that it can help you discover new aspects of yourself and expand your horizons.

Other people may argue that changing an area of your identity for your partner is a potential sign of betrayal, submission, and loss. They may say that it shows that you do not respect or value yourself, and that you are letting your partner control you. They may also say that it can harm your self-esteem, your authenticity, and your happiness.

What do you think? How would you react if your partner asked you to change an area of your identity for them?

Another thing to note... I've been noticing that RF sometimes does better debating these abstract concepts with specific examples. So I will provide some examples...

One example is Jenny-Anne Bishop, a trans woman who transitioned at the age of 63, after being married to her wife Elen for 38 years. Jenny-Anne said that she had always felt like a woman trapped in a man's body, but she suppressed her feelings and lived as a man to avoid losing her wife and family. She only decided to transition after Elen gave her an ultimatum: either live as a woman or leave. Elen said that she loved Jenny-Anne as a person, but not as a man, and that she wanted to be with a woman. Jenny-Anne agreed to transition, and the couple stayed together as lesbians.

Another example is David Kaufman, a trans man who transitioned at the age of 70, after being married to his wife Cathy for 46 years. David said that he had always felt like a man trapped in a woman's body, but he hid his feelings and lived as a woman to please his wife and society. He only decided to transition after Cathy encouraged him to do so, saying that she wanted him to be happy and authentic. Cathy said that she loved David as a person, but not as a woman, and that she wanted to be with a man. David agreed to transition, and the couple stayed together as heterosexuals.

My stance: Okay, now it's time to provide my own answer to such an issue. Here it is:

I have thought deeply about the hypothetical issue of whether I'd change myself for someone else, and I have observed that it rarely leads to a happy outcome, including with the lives of the two people I mentioned. I have seen cases where people changed for their partners, and they ended up regretting it or losing their relationship anyway. Based on that, I have decided to take a stance that respects my personal autonomy, and views any completely unsolicited requests to change myself as a potential red flag in a relationship. I believe that I deserve to be loved for who I am, not for who someone else wants me to be. So, if there is ever a question of whether to keep the relationship in such a scenario, it will likely be myself ending the relationship, and not them.

It's very hard to really change yourself, but you can certainly modify behaviours that a partner finds unsatisfactory if you care enough about the relationship. I think it was James Bond who said, in one of the books, not the films, that marriage, rather than adding two people together, tends to subtract them. While I don't subscribe entirely to such a negative view, it is something be wary of. Cutting out a big chunk of what is important to you is a recipe for misery - and divorce.

I would also be wary - very wary - of potential partners who expect you to change to suit them. A lot in relationships is to do with expanding your tolerance level to accommodate your partner. It's a form of giving. Whereas demanding that a partner change for you is, in essence, taking.

In my best relationships, what happened was we both expanded our toleration, and then we voluntarily picked up on things about ourselves that we could see the partner did not appreciate, or things we lacked that they would like. And then we tried to adapt a bit for the sake of the other.

But you have to be true to yourself and honest with your partner. It's no good pretending you love Indian food, or rap, or right wing politics, if you detest them.

 

[PureX]

It seems to me that in the instances mentioned, it was not really a "change" that was being asked for, it was for greater authenticity.

If I understood correctly, both of these people were being asked to become who they had always felt themselves to be. Which makes sense, then, that their partners would ask them to do that: ... to 'fulfill' themselves.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's very hard to really change yourself, but you can certainly modify behaviours that a partner finds unsatisfactory if you care enough about the relationship. I think it was James Bond who said, in one of the books, not the films, that marriage, rather than adding two people together, tends subtract them. While I don't subscribe entirely to such a negative view, it is something be wary of. Cutting out a big chunk of what is important to you is a recipe for misery - and divorce.

I would also be wary - very wary - of potential partners who expect you to change to suit them. A lot in relationships is to do wth expanding your tolerance level to accommodate your partner. It's a form of giving. Whereas demanding that a partner change for you is, in essence, taking.

In my best relationships, what happened was we both expanded our toleration, and then we voluntarily picked up on things about ourselves that we could see the partner did not appreciate, or things we lacked that they would like. And then we tried to adapt a bit for the sake of the other.

But you have to be true to yourself and honest with your partner. It's no good pretending you love Indian food, or rap, or right wing politics, if you detest them.

This is my view as well. To me, the question fundamentally depends on what exactly I would be expected to change. I would not try to change my core values—nor do I think I could convince myself to do so—or endorse something I found immoral just because a potential or current partner asked me to. If they or I asked that of the other, we would be incompatible.

In most ways that are actually significant, this is kind of a moot question for me: I know exactly which traits and values or beliefs would be dealbreakers for me in a potential partner (e.g., being against LGBT rights or being unhygienic, among many other things), so I wouldn't get into a relationship with them knowing these things about them in the first place. If the things I would need to change or compromise on were less consequential than something like my core values and principles, then I would follow the approach @exchemist outlined above.

 

[Quintessence]

I actually need some more time to think about that. But I'd say that there are a few similarities with a non-romantic person, but also some differences. For example, if you change yourself for a distant family member, it could only involve having to alter the way you act the few hours a month you're around them, rather than having to live with them, where it might be a different story. I'd say it's less personal to change one's self for a non-romantic person, but it also depends on specific scenarios, which I haven't had much chance to think through. There's also the question of big changes, and how far one should go.

When it comes to relationships, each one is as unique and different as the individuals involved.

When it comes to making changes as a result of relationships (of any sort) I think about the relationships I've had that could be called "perfect love and perfect trust." That's a Pagan saying, and essentially it is meant to articulate unconditional acceptance and trust. When you have that sort of relationship, changes made are to enhance mutual flourishing. They are positive and healthy, or in the best interests of those involved. And by "best" interests I mean it is still an authentic expression of who that person is, not something coercive or that would be out-of-character or against their nature. It's not an attempt to mold them into someone they're not.

The household I grew up in more or less operated like that. And it's a good thing too, because I was nonbinary and nonconforming before those were words that were used. Had I grown up with crap parents who refused to accept me for who and what I was, I probably would not be alive today. Relationships where there is clear dependence - such as a child depending on their parents - are perhaps especially vulnerable to abusing the desire to change someone into something other than what they are. There is perhaps no worse feeling than being rejected because of something fundamental to who one is... and no more wonderful of a feeling than the perfect love and perfect trust of someone accepting of everything that one is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'd accommodate, not change.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hell no. They can kick rocks. But I don't have a partner and don't want one.

 

[anna.]

A lot in relationships is to do wth expanding your tolerance level to accommodate your partner. It's a form of giving. Whereas demanding that a partner change for you is, in essence, taking.

Wisdom.

 

[JustGeorge]

I like what @Yerda says:

I'd change my behaviour for someone I love. I doubt I change a part of my identity even if I wanted to.

I agree here. I am who I am. But I can improve on habits and routines if needed.

In my best relationships, what happened was we both expanded our toleration, and then we voluntarily picked up on things about ourselves that we could see the partner did not appreciate, or things we lacked that they would like. And then we tried to adapt a bit for the sake of the other.

I think this is the best way to handle things. (Though it can get tiresome if its always one sided.)

But you have to be true to yourself and honest with your partner. It's no good pretending you love Indian food, or rap, or right wing politics, if you detest them.

I think my husband would be ecstatic if I pretended to love rap music, his politics, and the crap he drowns in cheap cheese and chili powder and burns the hell out of at the end of the night.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I keep it simple...if someone can teach me something new, I'll change to accommodate that whether I want to or not.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I can, to some extent, change my behavior. I can't really change who I am, because I dont think a lot of things describing 'I am' can be consciously controlled. I've had some bad non-romantic religious/community relationships with people that expected me to pretend to be something I'm not and it never went well, in my experience.
Not just for them because I can't be what they want me to be sometimes, but for myself in what felt like being false in the trying.