‘Give and Take’ or ‘Give and Give’? A Relationship Talk

I used to think that relationships require ‘give and take’: you give something because you love the other person, and you take something in return because they love you. Rather than making love seem transactional, I consider this concept a way to celebrate the shared efforts of two people.

I mean, it’s not fair to expect the best from the other person without giving our best in return. A relationship is a connection between two people, after all. We must be as considerate of their needs as we are of our own. That’s why the concept is called ‘give and take’ and not ‘take and take’.

However, a few weeks ago, I stumbled upon an interesting discussion about relationships where some people argued that the best concept in a relationship is ‘give and give’.

Initially, I thought they were wrong. The concept didn’t sound fair at all, let alone considerate. It seemed wrong to give without being reciprocated. I mean, a relationship is a connection between two people, remember? It should be built on a strong foundation of mutual respect and effort.

But after some thought, I can now see the perspective and true nature of ‘give and give’ in a relationship.

I still consider ‘give and take’ a basic foundation in all human connections, not only in relationships. As humans, we can’t maintain healthy connections without fostering mutual cooperation. But once we’ve reached a certain level of understanding where the other person won’t exploit our efforts, ‘give and give’ may be the best concept to follow.

Why? It’s simply because of a healthy abundance of trust.

For instance, I trust that my boyfriend wants the best for me—what he has done so far in our relationship has proven the theory. Now, I have no worries about applying 'give and give'. Instead of focusing on whether I will get something from him, I focus on all the best things I can do for him. I'm embracing the mindset of 'give and give.'

So, ‘give and take’ or ‘give and give’? I believe it’s simply a matter of perspective—and timing.

Comments