Does It Really All Come Down to Three Things?

Life’s a wild ride, friends. In the past year and a half my entire world has changed. Heck, in the last few months, my entire world has changed. And I’ve been doing a LOT of writing. It just hasn’t been on here. Filling half of a journal in two weeks (…or three in one academic year) has to be some sort of record, doesn’t it?

Anyway, what I’ve been meaning to circle back to for some time now is the trifecta theory.

I want to revisit the idea of it only taking “(1) a man of faith, who is (2) man enough to choose me and (3) exciting enough to keep my attention” to satisfy all of my potential needs for a successful relationship. I never meant to assert the idea that it’s that simple. It’s actually not simple at all. There are so many factors that go into what makes a compatible romantic partner for each person, and it seems I am not the only one who has tried reducing it down to a formula.

One of my favorite social media personalities, Shan Boodram, advises that people list the top 3 qualities we absolutely would prefer NOT to be without in a partner. Unintentionally, the trifecta theory I developed from my own patterns and self relfection is simply me listing mine. Other theories mirror this similar concept. No, really. There are whole books out there on this concept that I have not yet read.

“Within Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, he explains that there are three components of love:

Intimacy: the closeness each partner feels to the other and the strength of the bond that binds them together. Partners high in intimacy like, value and understand their partners.

Passion: based on romantic feelings, physical attraction for and sexual intimacy with the partner.

Decision/Commitment: represents cognitive factors such as acknowledging that one is in love and has a commitment to maintaining the relationships.”

–https://www.simplypsychology.org/types-of-love-we-experience.html

Separate from her own formulaic suggestion, Shan describes the above triangle theory of love by Robert Sternberg in her own words, posing the following:

“In order to have a relationship that is solid—a romantic connection that has a shot of going for the long haul— you need three critical components: passion, companionship, and commitment.

Passion + Companionship = Friends with Benefits. No commitment.

Passion + Commitment= Unhealthy Relationship, Lacking Companionship. —>Let it go. Life is too short to love somebody who you just simply can’t find the energy to like. Can try therapy here to try and find common ground, but it is also likely possible that you’re just not compatible. And that’s okay.

Companionship + commitment= A Practical Relationship, Lacking Passion. (much like that of generation’s past) —>People are frustrated because they’ve found someone that they get along with, that their family members like, someone who supports their dreams; and, furthermore, someone who’s gonna be there for them through thick and thin in the ways that they know that they need. And yet, it’s just not clicking. If you want to be a good friend to that person, even though you know it’s going to hurt them, it’s better to let them go.”

– Are You With The Right Person? Here’s How To Tell

She explained that sometimes you’ve just got one dot or line on the triangle. And in many cases one partner has a full triangle, or line, and the other has a dot, a line or a full triangle. This mirrors the concept I was attempting to explain in the post on my trifecta theory when I said,

“Have you ever said to yourself, ‘I wish Person A had ‘X’ fundamental quality.’ but simultaneously reject Person B who approaches you with ‘X’, ‘Y’ AND ‘Z’ great qualities, just because they lack whatever personal preference Person A brings to the table?“

and

“Consider the people you’ve dated or loved most. Why didn’t it work out? Were they captivating but didn’t want to pursue, commit to or remain loyal in a relationship? Was the interest mutual but your core beliefs and values were ultimately different? Are you ignoring the people who are insanely interested in you AND share in your values/beliefs because you feel no spark in return?“

–https://thoughtfulgems.com/index.php/2019/07/29/it-all-comes-down-to-three-things/

This topic is intriguing on many levels and I find it fascinating that I unwittingly approached it and reached similar conclusions as a that of what a whole psychologist and an awesome sexologist also derived. One day, I just might do more research and uncover that there is some sort of full proof formula out there. But, for now, here’s my verdict:

The trifecta theory (my theory) is both complete, and incomplete.

A Closer Look at the Trifecta Theory

In my original post, “It All Comes Down to Three Things“, I mentioned that the trifecta theory itself came from taking a close look at what had strongly attracted me to certain men in the past. But I never explicitly defined what the qualities within the trifecta actually look like for me, preferably.

Aside from my hesitancy in putting a prescription for how to win me over out onto the internet, I inherently knew that there was no formula—at least, not really. My understanding of my needs and desires is constantly evolving. And I’m sure the same is probably true for you.

The video referenced above was posted nearly five years after I developed the concept for the trifecta theory, but something Shan said regarding the last scenario she described eerily resonates with the headspace that originally led me to developing the trifecta theory to begin with. With regards to letting the practical partner go she says,

“I know that it can be really hard. Because a part of you might feel like, ‘Am I broken on the inside? I found this person who is good to me and somebody who wants to be with me, and yet I can’t return the feelings. Does that mean that I am destined to be with somebody who doesn’t treat me well?'”

This is exactly what I was feeling at the time, and I refused to believe it was true. I had also noticed a pattern with women actively turning down great guys, and yet remaining discontent in their singleness. I figured there had to be something to it. It didn’t make any sense. Surely every interesting guy out there isn’t suffering from commitment phobia. And clearly every guy interested in committing to one woman isn’t a dud. What was missing? And who was really the problem here?

These were (are) real questions that need answers. And while I knew I couldn’t ever fully answer this question for other women, there was hope in soul-searching my own romantic patterns and uncovering the answer for myself. The trifecta theory is the conclusion I arrived at following serious, intentional self-reflection.

And how well did the theory hold up, folks?

It didn’t. Sometime after writing that post I experienced what I believed to be my trifecta partnership. But, ultimately, it didn’t work out. And here I am, yet again, single. Thriving in another season of self-work and self-discovery.

I think all of the theories discussed thus far, including my own, are only valid to the extent that there is infinite presence of the qualities in question.

If one of your top three personal non-negotiables is that your partner is fit and works out, what happens if they let themselves go? If a man who was “man enough to choose you” suddenly stops choosing you, or you uncover that he never really chose you monogamously to begin with, what then? Same with excitability, companionship and passion. What happens when the passion dies, or when two people grow apart?

When it comes to desiring “a man of faith, who is man enough to choose me and exciting enough to keep my attention,” I have better capacity (and bravery) to explain exactly what this means for me than I did when I originally presented the trifecta theory.

Faith matters to me to the extent that my partner believes in God and shares in my belief that He is guiding all of our paths. This kind of partner is one who can pray with me and for me; someone who has his own relationship with God and seeks His guidance in everything that he does, like I do. I desire a man who is preparing himself to lead a household, not because it is the masculine thing to do, but because God ordained it to be so. In all of my progressive values, I uphold the antiquated statute of submission because it is pretty darn easy to submit to the leadership of a man who is leaning on God to order his steps and who displays his love for me in ways that embody the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness & self-control).

Within the confines of a relationship, I was designed to be a rib; a helpmeet. For what is a body without a rib to support its most vital organs? I do a really wonderful job at this, naturally. However, when I am placed into the position of having to lead a man who either doesn’t believe in God, is underdeveloped in his relationship with God, or who loves God but doesn’t know how to properly love me, it doesn’t ever work out too well. Leading the trifecta theory with desiring a “man of faith” is an essential decision, not a judgmental or sanctimonious one.

Regarding commitment, or being “man enough to choose me”, I prefer this to come naturally. I’d like for the decision to partner with me to be a lifelong choice, not a lifelong obligation. Once I like a person, I’m pretty one-track minded about that. It’s not much of a challenge to focus exclusively on one person if that person has core qualities that attract my attention. Among these qualities is the ability to fervently, respectably and boldly pursue me. This is why, for me, “man enough to choose me” and “exciting enough to keep my attention” go hand-in-hand. I love a bold approach. And I lose interest with lack of effort.

I’ll always prefer the guy who directly proclaims his interest over the guy who plays it safe. But anyone can do that. I have yet to meet a guy who doesn’t switch up his energy over time. As someone who is openly loving and endlessly affectionate with romantic interests, reciprocity within a relationship is a foundational requirement, not a request.

The term “excitement” itself is relative. I’ve recently realized that I may admittedly have a bit of a type. There’s a trend in who’s been able to keep my attention and who hasn’t, irrespective of the trifecta theory. And for me, my “type” has nothing to do with aesthetic everything to do with tenacity, gumption, chivalry, boldness, bravery and depth.

I appreciate a man who is ready, willing and equipped to protect me. I also very much respect someone with a story of resilience against all odds that could have led their life down a completely different path. I crave conversations of depth. And I highly admire someone who matches my level of resilience.

There are several other significant and insignificant trends that I won’t list out here. Overall, I’ve discovered that my attraction for an individual is truly rooted in an attraction to their soul and to their character. But yes, looks certainly do matter. And yes, I still believe that there is more than one way to be considered beautiful.

Final Thoughts?

I still think it’s important for each person to self-reflect on their own patterns and desires to discover what the ideal partner looks like for them, without it evolving into an absurd laundry list of perfection. People are not perfect, and neither are you.

At its core, the trifecta theory simply states that two people who mutually desire and are willing to commit exclusively to one another, with God leading their union, are likely to overcome any challenge that might come their way.

But things change, and so do people.

Someday soon, time might reveal that my ideal trifecta partnership does exist. But no love interest, fling, situationship or relationship can ever erase the amazing love I’ve developed for myself or diminish the spiritual, mental and physical wholeness God has worked so hard to instill within me over the past 27 years. Perhaps, that in itself is the greatest love story of all. ♡