Challenging the "100% responsible for 50% of relationship" theory

[Before you can make things better, you have to stop making them worse...]

I've seen used often on these forums that states we, as a participant, are "100% responsible for 50% of relationship". This is a phrase I sometimes proposed to my exuBPD and she wholeheartedly agreed. For her, it was kind of validation, setting a limit to her responsibility and leaving me wide open to discussion on what is considered 50%. After breakup, thinking about this phrase left me ruminating if this may have been my fault after all (remembering my provoked or defensive reactions and questioning how well I handled "my" 50%), again a question I see pop up a lot here.

For some reason, I am toying with this 100%/50% idea for the past weeks and I wish to propose a new outlook that helped me move a step forward. It might help you too.

Theorems:

1) The "50% I am responsible for" is not a "slice" of the relationship. Instead, our contribution to relationship is infinitely divided between myriad of small interactions. Example: it is not "I cook, you wash dishes". Instead, it is more like "I like cooking and it makes me proud I can cook for you. And you like being cooked for as it flatters you. And you will sit in kitchen and do pleasant talk. And we will exchange ideas and communicate. And I will feel validated because you would spend time with me during an action I like and because I want to prove myself. And we'll wash the dishes together after all." In other words, you might be responsible for 50% but that 50% is impossible to define.

2) Relationship is a social interaction of two individuals expressing individuality towards a common, yet ultimately selfish, goal. We all want our relationship to succeed, we strive for it, but at the bottom of it we are not Samartitans and want our success as a couple so that we can fulfill our own need. Nothing wrong or immoral with that IMHO. However, this interaction clearly falls under Nash game theory (Google) meaning the ultimately best solution is impossible without playing the game in a manner you take account of other player's welfare. In other words, you might be responsible for 50% but you are in effect responsible for 100% because any other option would diminish the 100%, which is below optimal.

Proposal:

Each of the partners is 50% responsible for 100% of the relationship.

If above theorems prove that "share" of relationship is impossible to quantify, we can value our "share" as contribution which is quite measurable.

Effect:

No relationship is ever truly 100% reciprocal. And that is normal. Our social, cultural, economic, geographic, even sex difference can skew this in favor (or in fault) of either party. However, I'd say there is a certain "healthy" limit to how far this can go. For example: yes, i could pull a bit extra, but I don't mind. And I mean I REALLY do not mind, you make me happy and I love pulling a little bit extra. So, am I contributing more? No. In a healthy relationship, the other party would contribute something immaterial - an emotion or other expression that would return the relationship into equilibrium

However, in a BPD relationship, I firmly believe that in proposed model non-BPD would contribute 75%+ to 100% of relationship, creating an impossible strain, invalidation, and aftereffects expressed in so many stories here.

[Numbers]

I've seen used often on these forums that states we, as a participant, are "100% responsible for 50% of relationship". This is a phrase I sometimes proposed to my exuBPD and she wholeheartedly agreed. For her, it was kind of validation, setting a limit to her responsibility and leaving me wide open to discussion on what is considered 50%. After breakup, thinking about this phrase left me ruminating if this may have been my fault after all (remembering my provoked or defensive reactions and questioning how well I handled "my" 50%), again a question I see pop up a lot here.

For some reason, I am toying with this 100%/50% idea for the past weeks and I wish to propose a new outlook that helped me move a step forward. It might help you too.

Theorems:

1) The "50% I am responsible for" is not a "slice" of the relationship. Instead, our contribution to relationship is infinitely divided between myriad of small interactions. Example: it is not "I cook, you wash dishes". Instead, it is more like "I like cooking and it makes me proud I can cook for you. And you like being cooked for as it flatters you. And you will sit in kitchen and do pleasant talk. And we will exchange ideas and communicate. And I will feel validated because you would spend time with me during an action I like and because I want to prove myself. And we'll wash the dishes together after all." In other words, you might be responsible for 50% but that 50% is impossible to define.

2) Relationship is a social interaction of two individuals expressing individuality towards a common, yet ultimately selfish, goal. We all want our relationship to succeed, we strive for it, but at the bottom of it we are not Samartitans and want our success as a couple so that we can fulfill our own need. Nothing wrong or immoral with that IMHO. However, this interaction clearly falls under Nash game theory (Google) meaning the ultimately best solution is impossible without playing the game in a manner you take account of other player's welfare. In other words, you might be responsible for 50% but you are in effect responsible for 100% because any other option would diminish the 100%, which is below optimal.

Proposal:

Each of the partners is 50% responsible for 100% of the relationship.

If above theorems prove that "share" of relationship is impossible to quantify, we can value our "share" as contribution which is quite measurable.

Effect:

No relationship is ever truly 100% reciprocal. And that is normal. Our social, cultural, economic, geographic, even sex difference can skew this in favor (or in fault) of either party. However, I'd say there is a certain "healthy" limit to how far this can go. For example: yes, i could pull a bit extra, but I don't mind. And I mean I REALLY do not mind, you make me happy and I love pulling a little bit extra. So, am I contributing more? No. In a healthy relationship, the other party would contribute something immaterial - an emotion or other expression that would return the relationship into equilibrium

However, in a BPD relationship, I firmly believe that in proposed model non-BPD would contribute 75%+ to 100% of relationship, creating an impossible strain, invalidation, and aftereffects expressed in so many stories here.

[MaybeSo]

We all want our relationship to succeed, we strive for it, but at the bottom of it we are not Samartitans and want our success as a couple so that we can fulfill our own need.

Humans have a need to connect.

If two adults have a good enough connection, it's good for them, their kids, the nighborhood, the community, etc.

If two humans are together having a totally BAD connection, it's  bad for their kids, the neighbors, the community. etc,

I think there's is a lot more to wanting a successful relationship than just fulfilling our own personal needs,  though a human need is fulfilled through healthy connection.  Getting our needs met in a healthy way (successful) has a ripple effect that likely is also not really measurable, though we certainly have plenty of stats regarding the cost to society of bad relationships where human needs are NOT getting met, in DV stats, police stats, physical illness, mental health stats for children and adults... .  etc.

One of the reasons Marriage Counselors use the the phrase that a couple is 50% responsible for their contribution to the marriage, or 100% responsbile for their 50% ... .  or however you want to slice it... .  is because unlike individual counseling where YOU are the client, in marriage counseling... .  the marriage is the client... .  the marriage entity is sick and needs help. The husband is not the client, the wife is not the client, the marriage is the client. This usually is the frame used for marriage counseling.  Whatever is going on in that entity is a blend of two people's stuff and how that stuff  combines to create that unique marriage and there needs to be a shift from who is to blame to taking ownership of the marriage if there's any chance for improvement, both taking ownership of their part of the unit, or one taking ownership and maybe the other will follow.  I don't think it's meant to be a mathetmatical therom for injured folks to argue further as to who is really to blame THE MOST for MOST of the problems in the marriage or couple unit. That kind of thinking is what keeps both people in the unit stuck, and the entity of their marriage stuck.

Most folks, when they first enter into marriage counseling, want to argue about who is most to blame for the problems and they want a counselor to choose a side.   They have stories, history, diagrams, mathematical theories, more stories,  tears, accusations and more accusations. BOTH.

If that can't stop... .  the marraige counseling will come to and end. There is no work to be done here. Any counselor upon being unable to stop the blame game and begin the path of self reflection, personal responsibility and ownership... .  is going to end the couples counseling and suggest they need to work on themselves individually in 1-1 therapy.

Often, in this case,  the marriage needs to end. No one wins.

There is NO game to be won here, there is no perfect mathematical theory that proves I'm more right and you are more wrong.  

If this is the game we insist on playing in relationships... .  

We will always loose.

[arabella]

I actually think of it more as each person being 100% responsible for 100% of the relationship. As you say, there is no way to actually split anything or to define pieces of the relationship, it's all balances and counterbalances. We each need to contribute 100% all of the time. Now, if one person has BPD (or some other ailment/disorder) what their 100% looks like might be different than if they were not dealing with that extra challenge - but they still need to give 100% of what they are capable of.

[catsprt]

I have heard of a counselor playing with the blame game and hinting on one person (scape goat) and going as far as saying that the couple would "hate him". Guess what? The experiment ended with the professional saying to the other " you should have interceeded".

Then, second round of blame game with a another counselor, then the individual realized that he/she could not possibly be responsible for all that went wrong. Yes, we are talking about a "couple" therapy that represents the 100%. But at the outcome of the therapy efforts, individuals are responsible for their own part if the unit is dysfunctional and there is no possibility of a "we"... .  

[waverider]

I actually think of it more as each person being 100% responsible for 100% of the relationship. As you say, there is no way to actually split anything or to define pieces of the relationship, it's all balances and counterbalances. We each need to contribute 100% all of the time. Now, if one person has BPD (or some other ailment/disorder) what their 100% looks like might be different than if they were not dealing with that extra challenge - but they still need to give 100% of what they are capable of.

We are all 100% responsible for whatever portion we ultimately put in. We are not responsible for that part the other puts in. As to how this breaks down as far as responsibilities within the relationship it is the responsibilities of both parties to contribute as much as they are able. but we can only increase our part, we cannot increase the others. We can encourage, leave space for, not bully, and not demean the others contribution, but ultimately it is up to them to add more.