Conversations with Robert: A Series
Disclaimer: Neither Robert nor I claim to be experts on relationships. This article focuses on heterosexual relationships between cisgender individuals due to the distinct power dynamics often present in these contexts. While power imbalances can also arise in queer relationships, influenced by factors such as race, class, age, and gender norms, this article specifically examines the inherent power imbalance between cis men and cis women. The concepts discussed here can be applied more broadly to understand how the principles of "access" shape interpersonal dynamics in general. Additionally, this article reflects a conversation between Robert and myself and is not based on formal research. It should not be considered a substitute for therapy and does not address the unique nuances of individual situations.
Authors: Demcenko, Z., & Hawkins, R.L.Understanding communication and interpersonal dynamics can be difficult due to our inherent limitations in seeing our own reality as the default. When interacting with another person we often experience them the way we may observe a tree. At first, you might only see the leaves — scattered, chaotic, and disconnected. They flutter and twist in the wind, seemingly random, without any clear pattern. But when you start connecting those leaves to the branches, you begin to notice the structure, the purpose behind the movement. Each leaf is part of something bigger, each one rooted in sociological or cultural branches. The trunk represents the physiological or underlying reasons we do the things we do — this creates the foundation of communication. Once you trace the branches back to the trunk, the whole tree, with its leaves, branches, and trunk, starts to make sense. The chaos fades, and what once seemed unpredictable and confusing now reveals an order and purpose.
Time and time again, I found myself asking, “What just happened? How did we end up here?” after a relational rupture. I was fixated on the details, feeling disoriented, misunderstood, and thinking, “Wow, he’s crazy.” Even in the midst of the conflict, neither myself nor my counterpart grasped the basic principles of interpersonal dynamics and communication. We were both fixated on the leaves of the tree, unable to see the broader picture or understand how the leaves were connected to the branches. Relationships would look so different if we learned to operate off the basic understanding of how access to potential dating prospects impacts communication.
How does access play a role in interpersonal relationships and communication?
When we discuss the idea of “access,” we are referring to an individual's perception of potential romantic prospects. Excessive access or lack thereof is dependent upon one’s attractiveness and desirability to other mates. The way most people measure access is based on the attention they receive from a prospective romantic entity. Example: In the common situation where two people interact on the street, when person one smiles at person two attention is exchanged and thus, for even a fleeting moment, access to a potential conversation, a potential date, a potential follow-up, a potential sexual encounter, and a potential reproductive act is born. Robert suggests, “both parties need to find and convince the other to give them the time of day. This is the initial hurdle of understanding our roles in the reproductive act and must be established at some point. We must establish that the reproductive act is possible.” In this context both positive and negative attention is a signal of access from the other party. Positive attention is fairly straight forward for most and doesn’t need much of an explanation; If a person gives you clear signs that they are interested and are communicating this toward you in a way you can understand, the message is clear and the subsequent ‘next steps’ are clear. Referring back to person one and person two: it makes sense for the next potential item to become a reality (date, follow-up, sexual encounter, etc.). Negative attention, however, seems to be the confusing element for both parties. When a woman reacts with negative attention during his bids for attention, many men experience this as intended and abandon conquest. In other cases, for other men, a woman’s negative reaction is still attention overall. Because the woman has confirmed that the man’s presence is significant in her life, regardless of vector, the man still has access to the woman. This leads to an unconscious persistence on the part of men to remain memorable figures in women’s minds. This persistence can manifest in various ways, such as catcalling, offering to buy drinks, or sending relentless texts even when the other party seems outraged, uncomfortable, or uninterested. For someone who perceives a more abundant pool of dating prospects, these persistent and often problematic approaches can appear confusing—possibly even psychotic.
Consider a scenario where two potential mates—John and Jane—have differing levels of access to potential mates, leading to a misunderstanding of expectations regarding attention. John experiences a lack of attention and thus lack of access to potential mates, while Jane experiences an abundance of attention and therefore an abundance of access to potential romantic encounters. If Jane offers John a small amount of attention, she may not realize the significant impact this gesture has on John. Jane has offered John a potential, rare opportunity for a cascade of potential situations that from John’s point of view may never occur again. From John’s perspective, Jane is the only chance John has for reproduction or even practice at romantic interactions. John’s experience, while holding Jane’s attention, is that he is finally moving closer to his ultimate goals for family, love, children, mutual camaraderie, friendship, companionship, and perhaps long-term monogamous matrimonial bliss. So when she cancels plans it might feel like a big deal. This is because, in vying for Jane’s attention, John is expending an enormous amount of emotional sacrifice and mental anguish in the process of maintaining Jane’s attention, including leaving his phone on during movies in case she texts, refraining from making other plans in case she wants to hang out, being preoccupied with Jane’s whereabouts, etc, etc. Furthermore, when John’s bids for attention with Jane go unreciprocated, he may feel deeply slighted. John is unaware of Jane’s social life and how many different bids of attention she is getting. John is viewing this situation as if Jane can easily provide the above potential realities and is merely choosing not to. The truth to his statement may be debated, but from John’s perspective, Jane could simply, and easily, choose to be with him at any moment and is simply choosing to do other things, and be with other people instead. John is viewing, and feeling, more or less in a subconscious manner, that Jane has more power in the situation than she actually wants. In reality, John was willing to grant Jane that power due to his limited access to mates and the inflated hope he gains from her attention. Because John has given Jane power over his schedule, his down-time, and his thoughts and hopes, when Jane merely cancels plans, goes out with someone else, or in a sense, closes off access, John feels overly slighted. By bestowing his free time/down-time emotional energy/mental energy to Jane, he has subsequently been paying for the potential of her attention, while Jane has paid nothing at all. Jane believes they both are putting in and getting out the same amount of energy, time, focus, attention, so breaking off plans is disappointing, but generally an acceptable and normal emotional situation. So when all John can think is that Jane is a narcissist, a bitch, etc. Jane is left thinking John is needy, crazy, etc. These are the leaves of the situation–she’s a bitch, he’s crazy. The branches and trunk of the situation comes down to the basic understanding of access–she’s at a surplus and he’s at a deficit.
What factors determine one’s access?
“We are going to physiologically and sociologically re-evaluate our relational value for the rest of our lives.” - Robert L. Hawkins III, LPC
The idea that we will continuously measure our value in relationships throughout our lives speaks to the ongoing process of self-assessment and external validation that is inherent in human nature. We need to maintain the opportunity for reproductive act. A man's worth, for instance, can be impacted by changes in his social or economic status, which then influences how he perceives his access to relationships. For example, when a man loses his job, he may feel a deep sense of insecurity, as his ability to provide or contribute financially is often tied to societal expectations of masculinity. The ability to provide resources is linked to attracting a mate, as it historically signaled stability and a higher chance of successfully raising offspring. Even in contemporary society, these ingrained perceptions can lead a man to feel like his value in a relationship is diminished if he’s unable to meet these expectations. This perception can trigger physiological responses, such as heightened stress levels (elevated cortisol), feelings of inadequacy, and even physical symptoms like insomnia or fatigue.
Similarly, women are often socialized to measure their value in relationships based on attractiveness or the ability to meet social expectations regarding caregiving or emotional support. For example, if a woman feels that she no longer meets conventional standards of beauty—whether due to aging, pregnancy, or health challenges—she may experience a decline in self-esteem, feeling that her value in relationships is diminishing. This can manifest physiologically in symptoms of stress, such as anxiety, depression, or a drop in energy levels, which can further compound her sense of insecurity. Sociologically, she may begin to feel overlooked or undervalued by potential partners, reinforcing the notion that her worth is tied to her appearance or perceived ability to nurture. The feeling of being less attractive or desirable might lead to a diminished sense of access to potential mates or relationships.
How a basic understanding of one another can positively impact communication?
“We need to understand the physical and emotional lives of each other. Women are physiologically different from men. Therefore, men become brut problem solvers and women develop in emotional and social domains. Men’s physiological strength allows them to be able to survive on their own. Women learn that their physiological limitations mean they need to be able to find help when needed.’” - Robert L. Hawkins III, LPC
Robert postulated that the physiological distinction is more or less flattened out due to contemporary factors, such as advancements in technology, changing social structures, and the evolving expectations placed on both men and women. In modern society, the physical strength once required for survival is no longer as vital for the vast majority of people. As a result, the traditional gendered roles that were once rooted in physiological differences have become less relevant. This also means men can’t continue to rely on brute problem solving – men are no longer able to use their muscles to move or punch their problems away and must identify other tools to address their wants and needs. In many cases, such brute strength is even outlawed or made illegal. The civilized world has moved away from an individual doing their individual things to solve their problems with force or strength, i.e. Hunting Licenses, Building Permits. Women, however, have been leveraging the community for resources, support, and approval from the very beginning, pre-civilization in order to maximize survival. In a sense, this puts women ahead of the curve when it comes to emotional and social problem solving. Women tend to approach problem-solving with greater nuance, shaped by their biological origins.
Example: Jane and John, when upset and arguing about their lack of compatibility, John may ball up his fists, or yell or scream. He may resort to the more brutish tactics to force the situation to resolve itself by accessing the tools his male ancestors used to, for example, move a large object out of the way. His muscles and body get into an aggressive stance in order to change and break the problem apart. On the other hand, Jane may try to lower the frustration of the conversation. She may try to make John feel better, ironically making the situation worse by providing more attention and thus access, but her intention is to keep John around as a positive relationship despite his aggressive nature. Her female ancestral counterparts would have to bid for the attention and help of the other men and women in her tribe, hut, village, etc., to help her move the large object. The random boulder can only be displaced if she is in a positive relationship with her neighbors, meaning that she is not isolated or alone. Women, largely, have a hard time giving a direct specific action or statement that closes off a relationship that has a high potential of forever barring that woman from her community. Unfortunately, this becomes a cobra problem. (A Cobra Problem is a situation in which the solution to a problem leads to more of the initial problem.) When women think they are preserving relationships for the sake of the community and their eventual progress as an individual, they are inadvertently and falsely giving ‘attention and thus access’ to men they are not interested in. Men, on the other hand, have little practice, and in some cases, little need to constantly maintain social relationships as widely as women must, and therefore they interpret any and all attention as potential access.
Jane says the words, “I think you’re great, I just think I’m not ready to be with you yet.” In this simple statement, many women will clearly understand that Jane is no longer interested and John needs to move on. However, many men will see this and think that Jane will be ready later and John will have to check in with her later. In the meantime, John is free to find someone else, but Jane is still considering him seriously as a reproductive candidate, they think. Ancestral Jane is attempting to preserve a positive relationship, just in case she needs a boulder moved, or a deer hunted. Modern day Jane is still using the same tactics to better hedge her bets in case she needs someone to help her move into her apartment, needs advice, wants to cuddle during a film, or, yes, potentially engage in sexual activity. Ancestral John, on the other hand, is typically not going to call Jane for help in moving the boulder. He is not going to need her to drag the deer from the woods, or chop the head off of a bear. John is seeking out Jane for a specific purpose, and when Jane agrees to give modern day John some of her attention, modern-day John has a strong incentive, and due to a lack of many other options, to subconsciously interpret Jane’s words and actions as moving toward reproductive action, even if the response is negative.
When these situations occur, and when we finally say what we feel, our ancestral limbic brain may react with the tools and skills we have all had to use in the past: violence and aggression. Men, having less practice and less to lose when social connections are broken seem to be more able to utilize violence and aggression in order to solve their modern problems as well. Both parties would do well to better communicate their intentions and needs, however both parties speak and talk to each other well, but rarely continually, successfully, communicate.
“We’re all shitty communicators.” - Me
“How did our race survive? Pure, random luck.” - Robert L. Hawkins III, LPC
In order to communicate well, we first need to know what we want to communicate. The challenge, however, is that we often struggle to pinpoint the core of our desires, which leads us to rely on broad, vague ideas. Many of us would agree that we want the same things; to be loved, respected, or valued in a relationship. However, to communicate effectively, we must be precise about the specific parameters and actions we expect from our partners that would make us feel loved, respected, and valued. For instance, if you want to feel respected by your partner, ask yourself: What does respect mean? Is it focusing on you, or listening to you? Is it putting your needs above theirs, or sacrificing time and energy? Only after you can best describe what something like ‘respect’ even is, then you must also ask yourself what does respect look like? Is it them maintaining eye contact while you speak? Is it them listening attentively without interrupting to offer their perspective? Is it them safeguarding the privacy of your shared thoughts? Before stating to your partner, “I want you to respect me more,” take the time to identify the exact behaviors you’re hoping to see. You may be surprised to hear that your partner believed, up until this conversation, that they were displaying signs of respect or even that you have been the one showing signs of disrespect. Your partner, more or less, may not have thought about these details nor practiced expressing these expectations. These conversations are essential to have early in a relationship, as they can play a significant role in preventing future dissatisfaction and resentment.
At this point in the conversation with Robert, I’m frustratedly exclaiming, “But why, why is it so difficult to say what we want!?” Have you ever heard someone say, “If he wanted to, he would,” or share the sentiment that “it doesn’t count if I have to ask,” or “I want him to want to want to do xyz for me. I shouldn’t have to ask.” I am that someone. However, with greater emotional maturity and an enhanced understanding of basic relational dynamics, I can admit that this mentality isn’t getting me closer to what I want. I suggested to Robert that there are several reasons why communicating our needs is so challenging.
We fear the other person is mindlessly obliging to our request out of a desire to avoid conflict, rather than out of genuine respect, love, or care.
We assume if someone doesn’t offer the act on their own, it means they don’t see us as deserving of it, so why even bother?
We shame ourselves into beliefs that we are too needy or a burden, worrying we would be perceived negatively.
Overall, we are attempting to protect ourselves from rejection and judgment. However, this defense doesn’t serve us in our relationships. If someone is going to dismiss, judge, or reject you when you show up authentically and vulnerably, that’s a good indication that person is not right for you. What you get by taking risks to communicate well is learning whether your partner is willing to take risks to communicate well. The sooner you figure this out, the better.
Robert’s suggestions for remedying these relational stressors:
Figure out where you are giving your attention–positive and negative.
Attention is a social currency. Exchange of attention is communicating that the other person is on your mind and is valuable to remember. Any attention should be considered positive attention. All attention is an opening, and all openings are an opportunity for access.
Challenge your own inclinations.
Don’t continue to value the attention you’re getting if there is no follow-up for positive action. In your mind, you’re giving attention and energy to someone you like for the chance of access, which may or may not be worth the energy you put in (as exemplified in the John/Jane anecdotes).
Recognize your triggers and when you are trying to forcibly mold the other person into your ideals.
We have to assume the person in front of us is the person they will continue to be. We cannot assume that the person in front of us will magically, one day, suddenly, become a different person who understands different cues or now communicates in a different, more effective, way.
Recognize that you have control to whom you give power to. You do not have to continue to pour energy into a potential person who is only giving you ‘chances’ for access. You can also leverage the access they have to you to better communicate your evaluation socially and romantically (again, refer to the John/Jane anecdote).
Be clear and honest in your intentions.
This of course means first figuring out what they are. Spend time writing down the general, abstract ideas you want, such as “love” or “respect”, and then write down what that may look like in terms of situations, or scenarios. Lastly, think about or write down what actions you may ask for from your partner that help explore or illustrate those abstract ideas. Use verbs, observable actions or behaviors that you can count or that they can practice. Those things can better communicate what you want, both with people who want to spend more time with, and those whom you do not.
For women who are dealing with multiple options and are weeding through many potential mates: Be clear and do not give any attention to those whom you do not want a more formal relationship with. Be clear when the conversation is dull. Be precise and specific when you’re done entertaining a prospect. Do not fill your Hinges, or Tinders, or Bumbles with people you’re ‘just talking to’. Be honest when you’re using these sites for attention, and have no intention of providing access or furthering the relationship. Be honest with yourself, and why you’re maintaining these pseudo-relationships, and be honest with those on the other end of those relationships so that they have the chance to practice placing their resources in the right person, and not becoming overly frustrated, angry, or aggressive when they’ve placed it all on you under false pretenses… whether intended or not.