Content uploaded by Yordan Zhekov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yordan Zhekov on Nov 27, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Myths and Biases in Romantic and Marital Relationships
Dr. Yordan Kalev Zhekov
Romantic relationships in general and marriage in particular experience significant
challenges in the contemporary societies due to the destructive myths imbedded in their fabric.
Myth may be defined as a false and exaggerated representation of the truth presented in a
desirable and attractive way. These misconceptions influence the attitudes and approaches of
the partners towards the other and the relationship. They lead to challenging the relationship
egalitarian framework for equally shared duties and obligations for its maintenance. The myths
lead to misuses of marital roles further undermining the relationship context as facilitating
healthy expressions of sexuality and parenthood. The misconceptions of marriage influence the
understanding of divorce and remarriage, which have become channels for escape from marital
responsibilities and commitments. The continuous embodiment of the myths in the relationship
lead to the formation of biases which enforce the dynamics of the myths and subjugate the
relationship to their undetectable destructive powers. The prejudices undermine the connection
between the spouses and create environment of mistrust, alienation and animosity. The present
article exposes some of the relationship myths and their manifestations through biases. It offers
specific approaches for their resolutions.
Falling in Love
The myth is related to falling in love. It is always sexually driven. This physical
attraction follows the inner sexual drive of the individuals (Peck, 2006). As it has been indicated
in the definition of myth, every misconception contains in itself some truth which in the present
one is linked with the importance of intimacy in the romantic relationship. Although sex is
created to be a constructive power in marriage, it has become for some people the essential
governing principle for intimate relationships. The bias is established through this unhealthy
construction of the myth (Zhekov, 2024). There is a significant pressure towards marriage
based on sexual desires and attractions. The problem may be identified with lack of
consideration of any other factors which are important for establishing a healthy marital
relationship. Due to this inner pressure, a hasty manner defines the rush into the consummation
of the intimate relationship in order to satisfy the driving force of sexual desires (Peck, 2006).
The second part of the myth is the temporary nature of falling in love. The latter is
linked with the initial emotional excitement. These forces of passion lead to the experience of
vulnerability with the purpose of overcoming the challenges with loneliness in the maintenance
of singleness (Peck, 2006). When the challenges in the relationship appear, the personal
vulnerability is intensified due to the different individual interests of the parties. Then the
previous lovers experience falling out of love and actually reach the position to completely
separate. The phenomenon is linked with the lack of healthy and sustainable boundaries which
provide for an equal positionality of the spouses for the maintenance of the relationship
(Zhekov, 2024).
Consumerist Attitude to Marriage
The present myth is linked with the commercialised attitude towards marriage created
within the contemporary social and family structures. This misconception is shaped through
2
the psychological principles of group dynamics. The nature of these forces shapes the society
as a whole and influence family relationships. The perspective which dominates people’s
attitude towards the relationship is defined by desire for instant gratification (Doherty, 2001).
The couple frames their approach to the marital relationship from the perception of reaching a
particular goal of satisfaction. The latter may be maintained without a real commitment to the
marital framework and responsibilities. The goal of the romantic relationship has become
entirely individualistic and egocentric in its achievement and maintenance. The consumerist
dynamic has also minimised the needs and the satisfaction of the other. The relationship has
become a required step for one’s personal gratification. The attitudinal force behind the latter
may be defined with egoism and selfishness (Zhekov, 2009).
The consumerist attitude has established the measure for one’s marital happiness on the
basis of a fluid and flexible scheme based on one’s feelings and formed through a benefits value
system. The relationship appears to function only by the evaluation of the spouse’s performance
assessed through this system and without consideration for one’s personal involvement. Hence,
divorce has turned from being the last choice to becoming the first opportunity to escape the
marriage (Doherty, 2001). Small and insignificant difficulties in the relationship become
failures of conduct. Abusive approach to the spouse emerges due to the reluctance of the
spouses to engage in establishing healthy boundaries and facilitating possibility for change.
The process is being primarily guided by one’s striving for an alternative choice of a partner
for a better companion. The reasons for divorce are shaped by one’s justification of the personal
desire to leave the relationship and look for a better one creating indifference to the consistent
marital failures (Zhekov, 2024).
Divorce is the Only Choice in Light of Infidelity
The myth of having the only choice of divorce in light of infidelity is deeply rooted in
the marital history of many cultures. Jewish, Roman and Greek legislations reflect in their
marital practices and documents the necessity of divorce in the experience of marital challenges
due to infidelity (Zhekov, 2009; Zhekov, 2024). The contemporary societies have created the
specific lenses of looking into infidelity as making the continuation of the relationship
stigmatising for the innocent party (Perel, 2017). The culturally or religiously imposed
righteous choice is considered as a mandatory step to end the relationship without the
consideration of opportunities for repair of the marital relationship. The devastating power of
the affair does destroy the dynamic of the existing relationship, but it is also considered as
providing the space for reconciliation and reshaping of the relationship. The process may
involve both spouses to reach the levels of knowledge, understanding and closeness to each
other’s worlds as never before (Gottman, 1995). The divorce may be a legitimate option in light
of impossibility to repair the relationship, but cannot be considered as the impending choice
(Zhekov, 2009).
The affair may have various predisposition factors and its maintenance may have been
linked with the emotional energy and excitement derived from its secrecy. The most devastating
impact from it may be the violation of the personal trust and commitment (Gottman, 1995).
The latter lead to the complete reformulation of the relationship’s structures and boundaries.
These need to be redefined and reestablished in order to rebuild the trust and the commitment
between the spouses after the affair. The honesty and transparency are some of the vital
characteristics of the communication in order to achieve the stability of the relationship after
the affair. The work required to recover the relationship is demanding and the dedication from
both partners is consistently expected. The marital relationship which has overcome the affair
3
emerges stronger and more resilient. The partners may reach a new depth of their closeness,
love and affection (Zhekov, 2024).
Patriarchally Imposed Dominance
The myth of domination is closely linked with the misconception related to the false
perception and practice of leadership within marital relationships. Domination in the
relationship of a couple is frequently pursued by the male partner. Different religious teachings
are used in order to facilitate a rigid patriarchal pattern of communication in which the woman
submits to the husband’s dominance. The behaviour of the husband following this pattern is
based on imposition of power and authority upon the wife in all spheres of the marital
relationship and family life. The wife is expected to obey and submit to the will and the actions
of the husband unconditionally in spite of their negative impact upon her and the family as a
whole (Zhekov, 2009).
The imposition of dominance is misusing the concept of the image of God derived from
religious contexts in order to facilitate the position of authority which assumes power over the
other spouse. The latter is coercively controlled through manipulations using misinterpretations
of religious source of authority and other related literature. The manipulations may appear to
be subtle but are degrading to the partner and eroding the relationship. The attitude and
behaviour of the dominant party create an environment of total control. This predisposes the
relationship to domestic abuse and violence which may threaten the life of the spouse (Heggen,
1996). The cycle of domestic abuse becomes an engrossed lifestyle difficult to realise and stop
leading to the complete submission of the victim and the reluctance to look for a solution
(Zhekov, 2024).
Manipulative Spiritualisation
The myth of manipulative spiritualisation is closely connected to the individual’s
spiritual life and related beliefs. The grounds promoting the spiritual misconceptions are linked
with the specific interpretations of religious texts or related to relevant literature in this area.
Partners who uphold and practice this misconception assume divine guidance in a mysterious
way through which they attempt to influence their spouse in the desirable direction of the
marital relationship (Heggen, 1996). They provide forceful guidance for influencing their
partners towards relationship boundaries which only serve their own needs and desires and do
not consider the needs of the other party. The elements of perceived spiritual guidance may
include visions and revelations which undermine the spouse’s personal freedom of choice and
enforce strict measures which shape the spouse’s space in the relationship (Zhekov, 2009).
The misconception is part of the domestic category referred to as spiritual abuse. This
is an intentional use of spiritual teachings based on misinterpretation of a religious source of
authority with the purpose of demoralising the spouse, infiltrating their thinking and conscience
and developing an atmosphere for the constant infliction of violence without blame. The form
of abuse may not be widely recognised as essential part of the domestic violence framework,
but it may be considered as a very manipulative and dangerous form because it attempts to
disguise itself behind the religious or spiritual language, traditions and rituals (Cassiday-Shaw,
2002). Spiritual abuse might be found in various religious groups and communities. One of the
expressions of this form of abuse is obligatory instant forgiveness (Zhekov, 2024).
4
Obligatory Instant Forgiveness in Marriage
The obligatory instant forgiveness is a misconception which may be considered as the
only option of the spouse who has experienced any form of domestic abuse. This attitude is
imposed by the abusive partner on the grounds of religious and spiritual manipulations. The
sufferer of domestic violence is experiencing pressure to extend forgiveness to the abuser either
by the latter, by the religious community, or by its spiritual leaders (Gushee, 2004). Forgiveness
plays a fundamental part of the belief systems of religious and spiritual communities. The
understanding of its implications in light of domestic violence has significant impact on the
victim of abuse and the relationship (Heggen, 1996). The latter continues to be manipulatively
guided by the abuser who is hiding the cruel intentions and behaviours behind the screen of the
extracted forgiveness. This has become treated as unconscious automatic action of the victim
to the perpetrator and as an excuse for further imposition of violence by the offender (Zhekov,
2009).
Forgiveness is a voluntary action being inspired by the personal belief system and based
on the free choice of the individual. The act of forgiveness should not be rushed by legalistic
religious obligations, but developed through a period of personal, spiritual, emotional and
physical restoration after the abuse (Gushee, 2004). The behaviour of the perpetrator should
not be encouraged through quick forgiveness and reconciliation but condemned and
rehabilitated. The abuser has to pass through personal conviction in the relationship with his
conscience. The experience of guilt and shame related to the abusive behaviour have to guide
the process of reaching the place of sincere repentance and change of behaviour. This outcome
may be considered as impactful to the cycle of domestic violence and lead to the initiation of
the process of reconciliation (Zhekov, 2024).
Bias in Romantic and Marital Relationships
People relate to their social reality by the perception of their belonging to a particular
group (Tajfel, 2001). Hence the nature of the socially constructed reality is defined by the
division of groups. Two basic categories establish the general division of ingroups and
outgroups. The former relates to the social context of belonging to a group of people which
reflects similarity of characteristics. The latter is identified as any other group which is set in a
competitive position to one’s own group. The relationship between these two groups is defined
through the dynamics of the intergroup communications and interactions. These are based on
the predisposition of a generic attitude positively inclined towards the ingroup and negatively
directed against the outgroup. The dynamics of this intergroup relationship may be considered
as reflecting an antagonistic nature. One of the most significant characteristics of this nature is
its automaticity (Zhekov, 2024).
Bias is defined as the automated framework shaped through the intergroup relationships
and personalised through one’s ethical, value and belief systems. The concept considered from
social psychological perspective is related to one’s attitude shaped through individual belief
system, authority, relationships and edification (Fiske, 2004). The dynamics between these
areas form one’s bias against the outgroup and towards the ingroup. The personal belief system
informs the bias which influences one’s attitude and responses in light of the perceived threat
from the outgroup (Fiske, 2004). These elements contribute to one’s relational dynamic in the
association with the ingroup as the context of one’s enhancement of the predispositions towards
the ingroup and against the outgroup (Zhekov, 2022).
The nature of bias is influenced by the processes of stereotyping, prejudice,
discrimination and stigma as linked with one’s thoughts, emotions and behaviours (Fiske,
5
2004). Stereotyping reflects a personal belief system which is shaped through the
characteristics of the group and applied to the person associated with that group. Prejudice
shapes one’s attitude established through the emotional association with the ingroup, its
dynamics and relationships (Aronson, 2004). Discrimination is specifically embodiment of
one’s beliefs and feelings in behavioural response with antagonistic nature towards the
outgroup. Stigma forms an attitude of undermining the other associated with characteristics of
the associated group (Goffman, 1963). Bias is associated also with its implicit nature and its
blatant and overt forms. Implicit bias is an automated cognitive disposition towards the nature
of the ingroup and disassociation from the outgroup. Blatant bias shapes the assistive positive
experience within the ingroup context over against the perceived danger from the outgroup.
Overt bias is the personal predisposition manifested through authoritarian and hierarchical
attitude and behaviours (Zhekov, 2024).
Bias in romantic and marital relationships is based on the assimilation and embodiment
of the related to this area myths by one or both of the partners. The false and misguided
representations of truths being accepted and allowed to define one’s attitude and behaviours
influencing one’s thoughts and emotions lead to biased relationship defined by intergroup
division. The partner perceives their spouse as belonging to the outgroup and treats them as
such. This automated manifestation of bias impacts every area of the relationship. The latter
becomes guided by the dynamics and forces derived from the myths (Zhekov, 2024). The
research related to the myths of romantic relationships and marriage reveals various
perspectives which undermine the very foundation of relationships and marriage. Certain
dynamics highlight that marriage is misunderstood as a mutually fulfilling and supportive
framework for the spouses and is established as grounds for achieving different selfish goals
and desires. These extend into undermining marriage as a safe framework for the fulfilment of
its responsibilities by both spouses leading to manipulations and abuse. The latter flourish
under certain religious dogmatics and spiritual manipulations leading to spouses’ suffering in
domestically violent relationships. The lack of a balanced understanding of romantic
relationships and marriages contributes to the development of biases which shape the attitudes,
behaviours and approaches in this area of life leading to mismanagement and destruction
(Zhekov, 2024).
Resolution for Myths and Biases
The nature of bias may be considered reflecting the characteristics of behavioural
addictions (Zhekov, 2022). The latter are closely associated with the dynamics of bias
considering the cognitive, emotional and positional process which establish parallels between
both phenomena. These are related to interpersonal and intrapersonal negative outcomes,
automatically shaped behaviours, attentional bias and the challenges with controllability.
Hence bias as an addiction shaped behaviour becomes difficult to recognise and manage
(Zhekov, 2022). The addiction aspect of the bias nature imposes further challenges in the
context of romantic and marital relationships. This aspect of bias informed through the
addiction processes and dynamics creates unbreakable relationship dynamic which is difficult
to recognise and acknowledge by the couple. Therefore, the combination between myths, bias
and addiction shapes the relationship context as a snare for both partners. They experience the
imprisonment and succumb to its restrictive and limiting dynamics within which they both
suffer, one, the cruel nature of a perpetrator and the other, the humiliating nature of a victim.
The cyclical process of dependency which shapes the dynamics of both conceptual frameworks
requires special intervention and support (Zhekov, 2024).
6
The resolution of bias in romantic and marital relationships may be considered from
educational perspective by helping the couple to understand the relationship myths and their
impact on their prejudice about the other. Educational frameworks may consist of self-help
work, courses, seminars and workshops (Aronson, 2004). The guided support through couples’
counselling and coaching may also provide relevant tools for understanding the operational
biases maintained through the relational myths. The resolution of bias may be approached from
a social perspective in regards to the framework of intergroup contact within the context of the
couples’ relationship. The approach is defined by four specific elements, namely, equality,
mutual purpose, collaboration and authority acceptance. These elements consider the relevance
of the egalitarian model of marriage, the mutual goals of the couple, their negotiation of
relational boundaries and their leadership roles in the relationship. The core of this approach is
the impartial positionality in personal relationships and interactions influenced by these four
areas (Fiske, 2004).
The approach for resolution of bias which reflects psychological, psychotherapeutic,
spiritual and social dynamics is conscience therapy (Zhekov, 2022). It addresses the solution
of bias on personal and relational levels. The three-dimensional framework of the approach is
shaped by the ‘E’ process of conscientious transformation. The latter relates to enlightenment,
empowerment and edification. Enlightenment explores the personal awareness and
understanding of the current conscience state regarding personal biases, myths and their roots
in the individual narrative. The empowerment highlights the journey of recovery with using
personal healthy spirituality as the input towards conscience rejuvenation to deal with the
biases and myths, and redefine the approach to self and the other. Finally, the edification
engages with resources for healthy and functioning conscience maintaining cognition, emotion,
behaviours, motivation and attitude free from the manipulative dynamics of the relational
myths and biases (Zhekov, 2022). The conflict between the latter and conscience is embodied
in their very nature and functioning. On the one hand, conscience establishes morally sound
directives of treating one’s partner. On the other hand, bias erodes the moral values and shapes
attitude and approach to the spouse with narrowmindedness and negativity. The solution is
considered by the interaction between the spouses shaped through equality, mutual aim,
collaboration and shared leadership. The solution is further explored from particular to general
through defining conscience therapy as the framework and means for dealing with bias within
a therapeutic context. The three-dimensional framework of the novel modality is fundamental
for the provision of the treatment support (Zhekov, 2024).
References
Aronson, E. (2004). The Social Animal (9th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Cassiday-Shaw, Aimee K. (2002). Family Abuse and the Bible: The Scriptural Perspective.
Binghamton: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Doherty, William J. (2001). Take Back Your Marriage: Sticking Together in a World That Pulls
Us Apart. New York: The Guilford Press.
Fiske, S. (2004). Social Beings: A Core Motivational Approach to Social Psychology.
Hoboken: NJ: Wiley.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin Books.
7
Gottman, John (1995). Why Marriages Succeed or Fail . . . And How You Can Make Yours
Last. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Gushee, David P. (2004). Getting Marriage Right: Realistic Counsel for Saving &
Strengthening Relationships. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Heggen, Carolyn Holderread (1996). “Religious Beliefs and Abuse,” in Women, Abuse, and the
Bible: Howe Scripture Can be Used to Hurt or Heal. Eds. Catherine Clark Kroeger &
James R. Beck. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.
Peck, M. Scott (2006). The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values
and Spiritual Growth. London: Arrow Books.
Perel, Esther (2017). The State of Affairs: Rethinking Infidelity. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Tajfel, H. (2001). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination, in Intergroup Relations: Essential
Readings. Eds. M. A. Hogg and D. Abrams. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Zhekov, Yordan Kalev (2009). Defining the New Testament Logia on Divorce and Remarriage
in a Pluralistic Context. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications.
Zhekov, Yordan Kalev (2022). Conscience Therapy: Unveiling the Power of Spirituality in
Conscientious Transformation. North Charleston, SC: Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP).
Zhekov, Yordan Kalev (2024). Divorced or Remarried and Christian: Serial Monogamy and
the Quest for Holiness. North Charleston, SC: Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP).