Opposites yet Complementary

Opposites tend to attract. Most of us already know this. But what makes certain opposites work and other opposites, fail?

Am sure you guys have seen the scenario played before your eyes before: a girl and a guy who look totally unsuited to each other and the people around them are wondering either why she's with him, or he's with her, or whether both of them can do much better. They stick out like a square peg in a round hole - yet in some funny way, they fit.

He's boisterous, she's quiet. Or he's artistic, and she can't differentiate art from a dustpan. Or she's intelligent, and he's a dimwit. Or he's affectionate, and she's as emotive as a corpse. Or she wants a leader and he's never been a leader, even to himself. Or she's a social butterfly and he's a social retard.

But they work, somehow.

And then there are the people who we perceive as perfectly matched - equally bright, both with riveting and similar personalities, generally wonderful human beings and seem to be the role model for others, to emulate. You expect it to work - and yet it doesn't work.

What are we missing here? Could it possible that our idea of an ideal partnership, may not be as ideal as we think?

The irrationality of love aside - I've discovered that what makes things work for couples that are opposites in nature, is complementariness.

It's the degree of complementariness they have together (on things that matter) that allows both of them, the space and the support to be themselves and all they can be. And in fact, nurture it.

The thing that we tend to forget about couples who are similar in nature, is that their demands of each other, may be similar too. And the degree of expectations, for it to be met - may also be similar. And if those expectations are not met - the possibility of conflict, is very likely. In their similarities, possibly lie the seed of their destruction - that neither side is willing to give in, or give up, on their expectations.

The irony is that, if the complementariness fit together - couples who have less in common with each other, may stand a better chance of flourishing in their relationship. No matter how much of a misfit, they look together. But there's enough give and take within the complementariness (which ironically, sometimes, is the result of them being opposites)to make them last.

And it may happen, with or without love. Complementariness does not necessarily promise you romance and rainbows, but it assures you that there will be less possibilities of thunderstorms. That it will be a smooth, undemanding journey. A haven good enough for those who don't ask for much from life, or for those who feel that striving for anything more, is a waste of time

Reminds me of some lyrics from Barry Manilow in the "Ready To Take A Chance Again" - it goes

"You remind me
I live in a shell
Safe from all harm
and doing okay, but not very well

No jokes, no surprises
No crisis arises, my life goes along
as it should
It's all very nice, but not very good,..."


But sometimes, having similarities, without bothering to further develop your complementariness, may only weaken your relationship. If you're both strong-headed without learning how to give in. If you both demand more of each other and yet, unwilling to give more of oneself. If you seek the understanding of your other half and yet, refuse to give the sort of understanding that she needs.

It would be nice, if you could be similar and yet complementary, to one another. And a bonus too, if you're in love with each other.

But the paradox is that, more often than not, it is the people who are very different from each other, who have more synergistic complementariness. Perhaps, because their strengths and weaknesses, are dissimilar.


There are ample examples of this, in the real world: Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, Salma Hayek and Edward Norton, Tun Dr. Mahathir and Tun Dr. Siti Hasmah, the brilliant economist, John Maynard Keynes and his ballerina wife, Lydia Lopokova, Britain's former premier, Margaret Thatcher and her husband, Dennis Thatcher, the Beatles icon, John Lennon and his wife, Yoko Ono, and the American First Couples, John F. Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy and George Bush Jr. and Lauren Bush.

Some relationships generally already have it, some relationships not - even where you're similar in nature. What is important, is the desire to want to make those adjustments which add to the collective complementariness, of the couple.

And this process is most helped by your ACTUAL awareness of what you want and what's important to you - and not just what you THINK you want or is important.

For instance, if you think having an intelligent wife is a good thing, try arguing with your girlfriend on a contentious issue and see how you feel about it, later.

If you want an ambitious husband, see how you would react to him putting his career ahead of you, when you're in a relationship.

If you think that you wouldn't want a wife that does not have her own life, see how you react when she juggles you with her family, her friends, her work, her gym, her cat and her inability to prioritize.


Be brutally honest. You may surprise yourself, at what you ACTUALLY want, but never dared admit to yourself or others, for fear of looking like a Neanderthal. Once you discover who you really are and what you really want, you have two choices - remain true to your nature or evolve to the "desired state", because what's at stake is important to you.


I did this test on myself and guess what I found out?

I don't really want a rocket scientist for a wife, a reasonably intelligent girl who can't out-argue or agrees with me, most of the time, is fine. I don't want someone with her own life and to juggle me as just one of the components in her life - if I'm the main thing in her life - that's fine with me. I love the attention, I can live with it.

She doesn't have to be a "suit" professional (e.g. lawyers, accountants, architects, etc) - even if she's a teacher, an air stewardess or a civil servant, I'd still love her the same. It really doesn't make a difference to me, if she has a 9-5 dead-end job, as long as she's not complaining.

She doesn't have to be immaculately groomed and stylish - because I won't want her imposing the same standards on me - I'm a capal-and jeans sort of slob and I enjoy it.

And I don't need her to be a social butterfly - as long as she's polite and communicates well, with me and my family. And I don't need to be taught to take care of myself, I'm perfectly fine with someone who is willing to take care of me. I don't mind not having an equal, because the truth is, I like being in charge.

But I do need her to love me and to know that our family is central to her.


So this is the reality - this is what I really want, if I'm honest to myself. It sounds like a Stepford Wife! Haha!

But I'm now honest about what I want. Whether I choose to find someone who can complement me on this path or whether I decide to evolve to "a desired state" - depends on how badly I want the girl. And I guess, how badly she wants me.

After all, opposites must not only attract, but have the ability to remain together, by adapting to one another. Complementariness between a couple must not only exist, it must be developed.