A compromise between two parties is usually seen as a way to settle a dispute by mutual concession. It is often used as means to conclude negotiations, settle arguments or simply getting closer towards a common purpose in human interactions. That is, compromise can and is even Recommended to be used in material transactions of any kind.
What I want to explore is the compromise in romantic relationships.
I start by saying there is no such thing, or, even worse, in case there is, it does more long-term damage than anything else (besides crucial faults).
Thing is, a compromise can only renouncing a part of the self in order to please the other. What's in this? Well, in order to reach common ground, each partner has to give up something: this something is a a piece of the self - a sentiment, a desire, a personal secret, a habit - which is very personal and an integrative part of who they are. So far, so good. Each gave up a bit and a common decision has been reached. This something, be it big or small (according to the value assigned by their owner) is seen as a piece that it's being traded against the partners renouncement, in order to reach an understanding.
The problem resides in the fact that