The matter of trust in maintaining a good relationship is well known; one that relationship psychologist and columnist stress for couples to acknowledge. Though trust is the foundation of any relationship, on the flipside of the hand, doubt must be destroyed for trust to have any affect. In other words, for one to totally trust their spouse, they must have no doubt that that spouse is faithful. Also, for the other to trust them, they can leave no doubt in the other's mind, therefore, there can be no subtle indications of flirtatiousness (free sexual expression), preferred self-sufficiency (I do not need you), or invocations of jealousy (if you do not want me, somebody else will).

Today's dating generation has placed a large burden on the egos of people who believe in old fashion courting and romance. The dating scene has forsaken the step-by-step relationship building technique based on trust, faithfulness, and devotion, and resorted to the "share program," (two to a person) in which the other must accept the new age dating rules. These rules require apathy to sustain ones jealousy along with respect for individual freedoms from both parties of the relationship and overstepping the boundaries is a no-no. It constitutes invading the other's space and showing too much suspicion or jealousy, which in turn raises the red flag of possessiveness.

With rules like these, doubt is inevitable; at least in the mind and heart of a normal person. If the person has hardened their heart in the ways of apathy, then doubt is easily flushed away with other natural, mating emotions, and chances of a successful relationship are slim. Even if the perfect spouse comes along, anyone who has been playing the dating game for too long will not know when to stop and to release that which is natural to secure a solid relationship. In fact, many have lost possible spouses and the chance of real love specifically for this reason.

The reason for such stringent dating rules is for a person to have a chance to explore different territories, or to flirt. "Having friends" or "associates" of the opposite sex is not uncommon today in the dating scene and people in a commitment should be able to pal around with these friends and associates without their significant other objecting. If the significant other agrees to the dating rule then they in turn search for friends and associates to do likewise. Afterward, a large window of doubt that a relationship will ever flourish opens in the mind of one of the two. However, that one will never show it because they do not want to appear possessive and unbiased in their dating ideology.

Independence, for the single and now married female, is a compelling trait adopted and respected by today's couples. No more, does the male bring home the bacon and the female fries it up in the pan, this is now an insult to the female's person. Therefore, if the male feels threatened by the independence of his significant other in any way, whether by career earnings, network of friends and associates, or the ability to eventually provide for herself if need be, that would be tough; he just has to learn to deal with it. But how does the playing field equal out in specifying the position of the male? It does not. Men's roles have dwindled from provider to partner, and again, if the male cannot conform, he is controlling and meets the high risk factor as a mate.

The above scenario works both ways, however. In either case, if one spouse feels that the other could easily get alone without them, this is a threat to their self-esteem, and if the spouse leaves this impression often enough and as a defense against future hurt, they leave more windows of doubt open. The threatened other will either seek to obtain a stronger position in the relationship or their self-esteem will suffer tremendous defeat.

Subtle implications to spawn jealousy in a spouse are the most dangerous in a relationship. Many think that if their spouse believes that others besides them are interested, they will play that card to the end. In other words, if Jane and John are dating, and Jane leads John to believe that Jim wants her, she knows that John will either show possessiveness - which is a no-no - or he will submit to her every whim not to lose her to Jim. Eventually, when John realizes that Jane is playing with his emotions he will in turn either play the same game or give in to Jim. Jane has placed too much doubt in his mind for their relationship to ever become solid.

Jealousy is a natural rage of a man, especially if that man loves his woman, and vise-versa. To manipulate a person with jealousy shows a lack of respect for that person and shows selfishness on the part of the one doing the manipulating. It also shows that the manipulator lacks confidence in their own selves and need trickery to get and keep whatever it is they want. Independence of a spouse also shows selfishness because whether one knows it or not, in a God-given relationship dependency is a key part of the relationship. If one cannot depend on their spouse, the relationship is a one-way street. Moreover, flirtatiousness in the form of the "share program" should not be a quality trait of a serious relationship, but should remain in the dating scene only because it has no validity in relationship ethics.

Only after the removal of doubt from each of the minds in a relationship will trust take affect. If a person can honestly say their spouse leaves no room for doubt, then they can confidently say they trust them, however, if there is the slightest notion of doubt, they cannot honestly say that their trust is strong. If pure love is a factor in a relationship, neither spouse would ever really want to hurt the other thus they would never give the other any reason to doubt them. This is one way to measure the love in a relationship. In a real relationship, the opposite of flirtatiousness, preferred self-sufficiency, and invocated jealousy actually makes a relationship, which is attentiveness to the other spouse, dependency on that spouse, and to gain the devotion of that spouse.

© 2003 by Cartel Q