Polysecure

To have autonomy without interdependency leads to isolation or narcissism. To have interdependency with no autonomy stunts our psychological growth. Healthy people live in social groups that have learned to balance or, better, marry these two imperatives.

To have autonomy without interdependency leads to isolation or narcissism. To have interdependency with no autonomy stunts our psychological growth. Healthy people live in social groups that have learned to balance or, better, marry these two imperatives.

It’s worth repeating that this sense of security provided by the relationship, this secure base, is what makes it safe for the child to explore the world. When we have a safe place to come back to, we can leave, just as when we are securely held, we don’t need to cling. Research shows that secure babies explore when they feel safe and seek connecti

separateness—and the fundamental insecurity it engenders—is a precondition for maintaining interest and desire in a relationship. Instead of always striving for closeness, I argue that couples may be better off cultivating their separate selves.

We need to be able to connect without the terror of obliteration, and we need to be able to experience our separateness without the terror of abandonment.

In psychological terms, this integration needs to happen in two different realms. In the realm of size, they need to integrate their bigness with their smallness, that is, their strength with their vulnerability and needs. In the realm of connection, they need to integrate their oneness with their separateness, their unity with their individuality.

Loving another without losing ourselves is the central dilemma of intimacy. Our ability to negotiate the dual needs for connection and autonomy stems from what we learned as children, and often takes a lifetime of practice. It affects not only how we love but also how we make love. Erotic intimacy holds the double promise of finding oneself and los