The complete vs complement thing is interesting to in this context. I do like the concept of "needing" the other person and being needed within reason. My wife and I have had the debate several times. I like the model where we are 85% whole and the marriage brings the following 15% to our lives. My wife likes the model where we are 100% whole by ourselves, and the marriage is benefit above that.

I can see and appreciate her point, and it is in line with Schnarch, I just don't like it.

It struck me that Labug referenced working toward interdependence which, as a choice of words, supports complete versus complement. In complement, there is no need for interdependence, there are two wholes who are choosing to share, but who do not *need*.

I like the philosophical debate, and I realize I'm on the side that will most likely be judged "wrong" by a healthy relationship yardstick, but I like the notion of comfort and security that the mutual need provides. The complement model suggests that any day, one partner or the other would get tired of sharing and walk out without feeling diminished, and the other partner would let them go without feeling diminished. From an evolutionary "pair bonding" standpoint, that doesn't feel like a marriage to me.

I think it's an interesting thing to think about anyway...

Accuray

Married 18, Together 20, Now Divorced
M: 48, W: 50, D: 18, S: 16, D: 12
Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 7/13/11
Start Reconcile: 8/15/11
Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 5/1/2014 (Divorced)
In a New Relationship: 3/2015