Few things attract and fascinate us more than each other. Forming relationships is such a widespread human behavior, it must reflect something within us that is basic to being human. Relationships are wonderful, yes, but they are not always easy. I do know one guy who claims he never has any trouble getting along with significant others; he also thinks he's the Easter Bunny. The rest of us seem fated to encounter at least some difficulties in our pursuit of one of life's greatest rewards.

Often, the trouble starts during some transition, like early in a relationship, the first year or so of a marriage, or when children come along. Over time, each couple develops their own way of dealing with relationship issues; some are more successful than others. If you are experiencing difficulties in your relationship, take heart!, relationships can usually be mended, and often made even better than new!

Ideal? Bah! Humbug! Some authors opine that there is but one type of genuine relationship, and if we can only attain it, we might know eternal bliss. All other so-called relationships are considered to be inferior, fattening, sinful, or worse. Phooey. Such claims make the same sort of mistake the five blind brothers were making with the elephant; there are many aspects of an elephant and many styles of "good" relationships. How, then, are we to know if a relationship is "good"? I thought you'd never ask.

Let's be pragmatic. A common form of a good relationship is one that works for its members. In other words, a good relationship is one that meets most of the perceived needs and expectations of the involved parties most of the time; a "good" relationship is one that does most of what its members want it to do. Note that it is permissible to substitute the word "marriage" for the word "relationship."

Love

While we're here, we might as well clear up the mystery and confusion surrounding the word "love." Many experts talk about "love" very much the way they talk about "relationship." They may specify many kinds of "lesser" or "false" loves, but "true" love is usually restricted to feelings of nurturing agape: a spiritual, non-sexual kind of connectedness that selflessly promotes the welfare of the loved one. To be sure, this is a wonderful aspect of love, but restricting all of love to only this type is nonsense. It's akin to claiming there is only one "true" color in a rainbow or one "true" note in a song. What we chiefly need in this regard is a more appropriate, concise definition...

pat, dig, fumble, fumble... Oh my, I seem to have left that definition in my other pants. But let's speculate, anyway. Maybe "love" is like an addiction, glandular condition or virus? Maybe a virus makes the world go around? No? You don't buy that? More seriously, then, it may very well be that "love" cannot, in principle, be either exclusively or exhaustively defined. Of course, we can say quite a bit about aspects or attributes of "love." We can use way cool terms like "transcendence," "positive connectedness," "intimacy," "belonging," "passion," "attraction," "attachment"... love is all of this, and more. Yes, there's a lot we can say about love, but it's my guess, at the end of the day, that love is much more than everything we have said or could say about it. It may well be that love, like God, is far beyond any words that reach for a definition. I could not "explain" or "define" a beautiful sunset in such a way that you would truly know what it is; some things must be experienced to be understood. Just as we must open our eyes to truly understand a rainbow, if we are to know love, we must directly experience it.

It would be very easy for me to speculate that the experience we call "love," is our vague, partial awareness of the fundamental stuff from which the universe is made. We are able to sense this stuff when we engage with another in a harmonious relationship. Love, it turns out, really is another word for God. As I said, it would be easy for me to speculate those things, but since this is not a philosophical treatise, I won't. You didn't read that.