Divorce Lawyer James Sexton Urges Prenups, Authentic Ties to Prevent Breakups

离婚律师 James Sexton 呼吁签署婚前协议并建立真实纽带以防破裂 婚姻之所以失败，是因为伴侣依赖法定的默认条款，同时又期望对方做出改变或永远一成不变。 离婚律师 James Sexton 分享了他二十多年法律从业生涯中的洞察，强调真实的沟通、展现脆弱以及积极维护关系是维系长久爱情的关键。他探讨了现代文化、工作狂倾向和社交媒体如何给伴侣关系带来压力，同时指出定制婚前协议通过确立明确的基本准则，实际上能够巩固婚姻。通过包括对为人父的反思以及关于已故母亲的触动梦境等个人经历，Sexton 强调真正的成功取决于情感健康、平静的陪伴以及感到自己值得被爱。 顶尖离婚律师 James Sexton 指出，高成就者婚姻破裂的最常见原因并非重大背叛，而是伴侣感觉自己在对方的优先级列表中逐渐被边缘化，因此通过微小而持续的日常举措传递重视感至关重要。 (11:04) 关系的瓦解往往源于“滑坡效应”（Slippage），即日常微小疏离与缺乏沟通的不断累积；人们因逃避短期不适而选择沉默，最终会将微小裂痕演变为不可挽回的情感洪灾。 (22:45) 为了弥合伴侣间的沟通差异，Sexton 建议引入涵盖纯倾听、解决问题、转移注意与肢体接触的“支持菜单”，并通过每周互评三件欣赏之事的固定仪式来加深亲密感。 (36:06) 过度追求自给自足的“超级独立”虽能筑起职业护城河，却常成为阻碍亲密关系的壁垒；真正持久的连接需要打破防御，将职场中的坚毅与情感上的柔软脆弱融为一体。 (64:11)

Drawing on a 25-year legal career representing high-net-worth clients, divorce attorney James Sexton contends that most marriages unravel not from sudden catastrophes, but from accumulated minor neglect and emotional avoidance. He argues that sustaining a partnership requires intentional communication rituals, proactive conflict resolution, and clear structural agreements like prenuptial contracts. The Anatomy of Slippage and Emotional Avoidance (22:45) Sexton observes that presenting causes for divorce—such as infidelity or sudden financial disputes—are usually symptoms rather than root drivers. Instead, marriages deteriorate through what he terms "slippage," which is the gradual accumulation of unchecked micro-disconnections. Because human psychology defaults to avoiding short-term discomfort, partners frequently ignore early friction until an unaddressed crack compounds into a systemic collapse. Intentional Rituals and Non-Defensive Dialogue (31:52) To counter slippage, Sexton advocates for structured, routine maintenance rather than waiting for an emergency. He recommends a weekly exercise where couples exchange three specific things they appreciate about each other, along with actionable areas of growth. When friction occurs, he suggests replacing accusatory framing ("something is broken") with neutral observation ("something has changed"). Additionally, offering a clear "support menu"—choosing between active listening, problem-solving, distraction, or physical comfort—helps partners provide appropriate emotional responses without defensive friction. Vulnerability, Childhood Trauma, and Hyper-Independence (49:37) Sexton identifies excessive self-reliance and the fear of vulnerability as major barriers to intimacy, particularly among high achievers. Drawing from his own upbringing in an alcoholic home, he notes that survival behaviors like extreme independence often fuel professional drive while simultaneously isolating individuals in personal relationships. Genuine connection requires partners to drop curated facades and acknowledge that professional competence does not substitute for emotional openness. Prenuptial Agreements as Risk Mitigation (80:26) Sexton frames prenuptial agreements as practical relationship safeguards rather than signs of impending failure. Without a customized agreement, couples default to state statutes, which can lead to costly forensic litigation and arbitrary legal thresholds, such as statutory alimony spikes or community property commingling. Sexton recommends a transparent "yours, mine, and ours" framework—retaining separate pre-marital property while intentionally sharing voluntary contributions in joint accounts—negotiated during moments of mutual goodwill rather than crisis. Demographic Shifts in Gray and Millennial Divorce (107:13) Official divorce statistics reflect diverging generational trends. While younger generations such as Millennials and Gen Z divorce less frequently due to cohabitation, later marriages, and more pragmatic expectations, "gray divorce" among individuals over 50 has doubled since 1990 and tripled for those over 65. Sexton attributes this increase to medical innovations, longer life spans, and increased financial autonomy among women, all of which encourage older adults to exit unfulfilling partnerships rather than remain in stagnant marriages. Ultimately, Sexton posits that the central challenge of modern marriage lies in overcoming the twin illusions that marriage will either magically change a partner or permanently preserve a relationship without deliberate maintenance. He maintains that despite the high statistical risk of failure, navigating the vulnerability of a shared life remains worthwhile, provided partners prioritize authenticity and mutual service over external status.

资深离婚律师James Sexton在节目中指出，约半数婚姻走向破裂的核心诱因并非突发危机，而是长期逃避不适感累积而成的微小疏离。他主张伴侣应通过主动沟通、设定清晰的婚前财务规则，来维系长期亲密关系并对抗不切实际的情感神话。 微小疏离与逃避不适的破裂机制 (22:45) Sexton认为，出轨、激烈冲突或财务危机往往只是婚姻破裂的表面现象，真正的根源在于双方在共同叙事中迷失了方向，导致他所称的“滑坡”（slippage）。这种滑坡是由成千上万次未被处理的微小疏离累积而成，犹如水滴最终汇聚成洪水。人们在心理机制上倾向于为了逃避眼前的短暂不适而放弃长远幸福，面对矛盾往往选择沉默，最终让轻微的裂痕恶化为不可收拾的危机。此外，许多人抱持不切实际的心态，认为伴侣应当像读心术般完全理解自己，但Sexton指出，即便经过长年反思，多数成年人对自己动机的理解往往也仅有七成左右。 重构对话框架与支持工具清单 (31:52) 为了在危机形成前解决问题，Sexton建议以非防御性的观察方式开启沟通。与其指责“事情搞砸了”或“我们性生活不够”，不如使用“你有没有注意到最近有些变化？”等中立表述，从而以好奇心与脆弱性替代互相推诿。他指出男女在面对问题时往往存在本能差异：男性倾向于迅速提供解决方案，而女性则常常需要情感共鸣与倾听。对此，他提出了包含“倾听与确认”、“解决与行动规划”、“分散注意力”以及“肢体接触”四种维度的“支持菜单”（Support Menu），伴侣可以直接询问对方当下所需的应对模式，避免猜忌与无效安慰。 低负担的定期亲密仪式与内在恐惧 (41:21) Sexton提倡每周进行固定仪式以维护亲密关系：基础层面为互相分享三件具体爱对方的事；进阶层面则涵盖彼此感到被爱、感到性冲动以及有待改进的各三件事。他反驳了“伴侣生性不愿表达”的借口，指出即便透过便签或短信也能达成效果。抗拒这类仪式的根本原因通常不是懒惰，而是对暴露脆弱的恐惧，担心一旦完全展现真实的缺点与软弱便不再被爱。这种防御心态不仅促使人们在伴侣面前维持表演型人设，还让极度自立变成阻碍亲密关系的屏障。他强调，适度展现温和与脆弱并不会削弱力量，反而能让人格更加完整。 婚前协议重构与财务边界划分 (80:26) 针对伴侣普遍对签署婚前协议产生的顾虑，Sexton强调定制协议能切实保护婚姻。若夫妻不自行制定规则，资产划分便只能交由州立法机构的默认法规裁决，例如加州等地的共同财产法或达到特定婚龄后的法定转换机制，往往会引发漫长且昂贵的诉讼纠纷。他通过M&M豆直观展示了“你的、我的、我们的”（yours, mine, ours）三层资产划分模型：婚前财产或个人名下资产各自独立，联合账户与共同资产则进行五五对半分割。他主张在两人感情深厚、对未来充满乐观时协商财务方案，而非留到分手反目时处理；同时，伴侣还可通过定制条款兼顾育儿保障，或利用宠物协议（Petnup）提前规划伴侣动物的抚养权与医疗决策。 社会预期变迁与晚年离婚潮兴起 (107:13) 在宏观人口趋势方面，Sexton观察到离婚率呈现出世代分化。千禧一代与Z世代因推迟结婚、婚前同居以及择偶更审慎，离婚率显著下降；与此同时，50岁以上的“银发离婚”（gray divorce）自1990年以来翻了一番，65岁以上群体更是增长了两倍。这种老年离婚激增不仅源于医疗进步和激素替代疗法让老年人能更长久地维持活跃生活，也得益于女性职业发展带来的财务自主，以及社会对离婚道德羞耻感的减弱。Sexton指出，摧毁婚姻的往往是两种矛盾的错误预设：一种是妄想结婚能彻底改变伴侣的固有缺点，另一种则是幻想婚姻能将生活定格而永不变化。 Sexton总结认为，婚姻的成功不在于形式上的天长地久，而在于双方能否在长久相处中帮助彼此成为最真实的自己。尽管现代社会常将财富、社会地位与外部赞誉视为关键成功指标，但物质成就无法替代深刻的人际联结；伴侣必须勇于面对内心的不适与变化，在日常中持续确认彼此的优先级。

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道 The Diary Of A CEO（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 2 月 12 日发布。节目邀请了拥有逾二十年家庭法执业经验的美国知名离婚律师兼畅销书作家詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton），深入探讨亲密关系屡屡受挫的原因、AI 与社交媒体对人类情感的冲击、挽救婚姻的沟通技巧、婚前协议的实际运作机制以及如何打破有毒关系循环。 ## TL;DR 塞克斯顿以“拆解婚姻残骸的修车工”视角指出，多数婚姻的终结并非始于戏剧性的背叛，而是源于伴侣在日常中停止关注对方、逃避面对脆弱与不适而引发的“无意识滑坡”。他倡导夫妻建立每周互换爱意与改进意见的简短仪式，并运用非防御性的情感沟通策略来防患于未然。同时，他破除了对婚前协议的传统偏见，提出“你的、我的、我们的”三层财产划分模型，以避免在婚姻终结时陷入耗资数百万美元的对抗性诉讼。最终，他强调婚姻的真正价值在于彼此托举以活出最真实的自我，并在剥离一切世俗成就后体悟到“爱与被爱”才是生命唯一的本质。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话呈现出一种奇妙的二元交织感——既有纽约诉讼律师特有的锋芒毕露、机智幽默与直言不讳，又散发着直击灵魂的温柔、脆弱与人性感悟。塞克斯顿用随手抓起的 M&M 豆拆解法条，言辞犀利接地气，但在谈及年幼时因家庭创伤而筑起心墙、以及梦中病逝母亲那无声的抚慰时，却多次哽咽落泪。伴随着史蒂文真诚务实的倾听与追问，访谈从现实冷酷的离婚诉讼逐步升华至对爱、接纳与人生终极意义的深刻反思，给听众带来既如冷水浇头般清醒、又如深拥般温暖的沉浸式体验。 ## Bulletin - [11:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=664s) 约56%的婚姻以离婚收场，且伴侣提出离婚的头号杀手往往并非出轨或家暴，而是情感上长期被忽视以及在生活优先级中的持续滑落。 - [41:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2481s) 面对婚姻中的沟通障碍，塞克斯顿推荐一套每周5分钟仪式：轮流说出3件深爱对方的事与3件希望改进的具体行为，用极简日常习惯抵御微小的情感疏离。 - [01:31:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5473s) 婚前协议的实质是明确“你的、我的、我们的”三层财产划分规则，旨在防止因七年共同生活或财产混同而被迫由州政府生硬的法律规则一刀切裁决。 - [01:48:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6524s) 自1990年以来，50岁以上群体的“银发离婚”翻了一倍，65岁以上激增三倍；女性经济独立、寿命质量提升以及对离婚污名化的消除推动了这一代际转变。 ## Key takeaways - [02:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=165s) 婚姻在现实层面上只有两种结局：要么终结于死亡，要么终结于离婚；最高形态的亲密关系是在长相厮守中互相托举成为最真实的自我。 - [08:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=490s) 男女出轨动因存在本质差异：男性的不忠多因自控力崩溃且表现拙劣，女性的出轨则往往意味着关系在心理与情感层面已经彻底死亡。 - [13:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=797s) 高成就者与财富提供者常陷入优先级误区：金钱无法弥补情感上的被边缘化，维系紧密连接的关键在于高频、确定性的微小触点（如每天一分钟视频通话）。 - [18:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1114s) 大众文化将浪漫喜剧与完美社交动态打造成了“情感色情片”，误导人们以为真爱应当毫不费力，导致在面对真实的摩擦与不适时迅速产生幻灭感。 - [26:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1570s) 摧毁婚姻的核心机制是“滑坡效应”（Slippage）：无数微小的断联因逃避短期不适而被忽视，累加之后最终导致伴侣彻底偏离最初的故事主线。 - [31:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1861s) 化解冲突的有效沟通应以唤醒美好记忆和观察变化为切入点，避免开门见山的问责，并通过“先道歉”的战术谦卑瞬间解除对方的防御姿态。 - [37:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2250s) 采用“情感菜单”应对伴侣的情绪低落：不要盲目去猜或直接扔出解决方案，而应提供纯倾听、提建议、讲笑话、肢体亲密或散步等选项供对方自选。 - [43:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2600s) 伴侣抗拒深度沟通的核心恐惧，是潜意识深处坚信自己“不配被爱”，害怕暴露真实的缺陷与脆弱后会被对方彻底抛弃。 - [58:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=3523s) 童年抚养者的不稳定往往催生出极度自立与病态控制欲；这种在职场中筑起护城河的生存盔甲，若不经反思，便会成为亲密关系的最大阻碍。 - [01:14:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4448s) 工作成瘾本质上是一种逃避痛苦的麻醉剂；外界数万人的崇拜与名声犹如人造甜味剂，永远无法替代一个深知你底细却依然全心爱你的伴侣。 - [01:20:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4850s) 签署婚前协议并非质疑彼此的信任，而是将婚姻资产规则的决定权从州政府和陌生法官手中收回，由双方自主设定清晰界限。 - [01:35:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5730s) 婚前协议的“日落条款”具有自毁风险，往往导致富裕一方在年限临近时陷入算计与猜忌，甚至直接在结婚第6至7年间引发异常的离婚峰值。 - [01:43:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6223s) 随着宠物在法律上正由“动产”向伴侣家庭成员演进，“宠物婚前协议”（Petnup）在提前锁定医疗决策权、探视日程与优先领养权方面正变得越来越必要。 - [01:52:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6771s) 步入婚姻的两个致命错误假设：一是妄想婚后能通过一纸婚书改变对方的缺点，二是天真地以为热恋期的美好会在婚姻的高墙内永远保持静止不变。 - [02:04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=7440s) 生命的终极价值并非来自物质积累或外在世俗成就；行至人生尽头，除了深爱过的人、深爱你的人以及共同创造的经历外，其余皆是噪音。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=0s) 维系亲密关系的每周仪式与面对脆弱的勇气 在探讨如何避免婚姻走向破裂时，离婚律师詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）给出了一个看似简单却极具挑战性的日常沟通仪式：每周一次，伴侣双方必须互相说出“三件深爱对方的事情”以及“三件对方本可以做得更好的事情”。针对许多人可能会找借口推脱——例如抱怨伴侣“戴夫（Dave）”听到这种要求只会觉得尴尬肉麻并不愿配合——塞克斯顿直截了当地予以驳斥：“去他的，戴夫难道真的连三件喜欢你的事情都说不出来吗？这要求真的很过分吗？我完全不信这种鬼话。”他指出，人们抗拒这种练习的核心，在于无法面对暴露脆弱时带来的短暂不适感。 塞克斯顿坦言自己虽非心理咨询师，但在二十多年的执业生涯中代理过无数顶尖学者、专业运动员和商业巨头，发现即便是在事业上呼风唤雨的成功人士，在直面亲密关系的核心问题时同样拙劣且胆怯。人类潜意识深处往往极度恐惧探究两个问题：“你到底爱我什么？”以及“我到底哪里做错了？”这种回避沟通的倾向不仅存在于爱情中，也深刻地存在于亲情之中。塞克斯顿动情地回忆起自己十年前因癌症去世的母亲，母子之间曾有许多至关重要的话未曾挑明，如今他常常遗憾自己无法再当面为年轻时的过错向母亲致歉。然而，人们为了逃避片刻的尴尬与冲突，往往选择将真实的情感永远封存。 在他看来，真正的爱情与承诺需要极大的勇气，其本质就是“赋予对方伤害自己的机会与权利”。婚姻的结局在现实层面上只有两种：要么终结于死亡，要么终结于离婚。当一段关系走向终点时，如果双方能够由衷地对彼此说出“是你帮助我成为了最真实的自己”，那便是给予另一个人最宝贵的生命赠礼。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）随后展示了自己的订婚照，并向塞克斯顿请教：如果未来自己的未婚妻不幸走进了塞克斯顿的离婚律所，导致她执意离开一个能够提供优渥生活与周全保护的伴侣的“头号原因”，究竟会是什么？ - **每周核心沟通法则**：每周互换“3条爱对方的具体细节” + “3条期望对方改进的具体行为”。 - **逃避沟通的根源**：并非伴侣缺乏爱意，而是对直面评价与暴露自身脆弱存在本能的恐惧（害怕“暂时的不适感”）。 - **婚姻的两大客观归宿**：一切婚姻最终非死即离（Death or Divorce）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 亲密关系沟通与破裂机制 accDescr: 展示逃避沟通如何导致情感疏离，以及建立每周仪式如何维系真实的连接。 subgraph 常见破裂回路 A["日常小矛盾与不满"] --> B["回避短暂不适<br/>（拒绝坦白与道歉）"] B --> C["情感隔阂与防御加深"] C --> D["婚姻走向不可逆终结"] end subgraph 塞克斯顿推荐仪式 E["每周固定深度沟通"] --> F["表达3个爱意细节<br/>（建立安全感）"] E --> G["提出3个改进建议<br/>（解决实际分歧）"] F & G --> H["互相促进成为最真实的自己"] end ``` --- ### [02:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=165s) 现代社会的“情感饥渴”与真正爱情的定义 史蒂文正式开启对话，分享了自己刚刚向未婚妻求婚并获应允的喜讯。但由于统计数据显示约有50%的婚姻最终走向瓦解，他希望站在起跑线上向塞克斯顿寻求长久相处的智慧。在深入具体方法前，塞克斯顿从宏观视角对当代社会的情感现状进行了诊断：我们正处于一个极度尴尬与矛盾的文化节点。在经历了疫情封控和无休止的电子屏幕轰炸后，人们空前渴望真实的肢体温度与人际连接，但讽刺的是，当代人维系关系的技能却严重退化。“建立连接（Finding connection）”与“维系连接（Staying connected）”是两种截然不同的能力，如今的社会现状恰恰是：“我们比以往任何时候都更加饥肠辘辘，却彻底失去了做饭的技能。” 谈及史蒂文的订婚，塞克斯顿由衷表达了赞赏与祝福。他认为爱情最动人之处，在于两个人真挚且毫无保留地认定彼此就是这个世界上自己的“最爱之人（Favorite person）”，并且确信对方口中的这份认定绝对真实。在塞克斯顿看来，如果能找到这样一个彼此认可的灵魂伴侣，哪怕付出巨大的试错成本也是值得的。 塞克斯顿更为史蒂文构想了一段发人深省的“婚礼祝词”：既然所有婚姻都注定以死亡或离婚收场，他衷心祝愿史蒂文的婚姻能以死亡作为结局。他甚至幽默而深情地建议“最好由史蒂文先行离世”，以便在生命的最后一刻，躺在病榻上的他能听到未婚妻贴在耳畔平静而真诚地说道：“你帮助我成为了最真实的自己，而你依然是我最爱的人。”尽管统计数据对长久婚姻并不乐观，但明知风险重重仍愿意全情投入，去赋予彼此生命不可替代的价值，这正是亲密关系最崇高和美丽的地方。 - **当代情感困境**：对真实接触的高度渴望与极度匮乏的情感维系能力并存（“空前饥渴，却不会做饭”）。 - **两项独立技能**：建立连接的能力 ≠ 长期保持连接的能力。 - **健康亲密关系的最高形态**：在长相厮守中促进彼此成为“最真实的自我”，并在生命终点仍视对方为“最爱之人”。 --- ### [06:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=391s) 劝和不劝分的律师视角与出轨中的男女差异 作为一位终日见证婚姻瓦解、却依然坚信爱情的离婚律师，塞克斯顿被问及是否曾在接待委托人时主动劝阻对方离婚、建议双方破镜重圆。塞克斯顿解释道，每当有当事人推门走入办公室时，他的第一反应通常是评估：“这个人是否准确客观看待了他们目前所处的境遇？”很多时候，客户是在毫无防备下被送达了离婚起诉书，婚姻已事实上死亡，他们来律所仅仅是为了组织法律防御。然而，只要塞克斯顿察觉到当事人或许能从个人心理治疗中获益，或者换个心态审视关系便有可能迎来转机，他会毫不犹豫地将他们推荐给心理咨询专家。 在很多案例中，婚姻亮起红灯往往是因为遭遇了突发的破坏性事件——例如婚外情败露，或者突如其来的失业引发了强烈的家庭震荡。塞克斯顿强调，特别是当家庭中育有子女时，贸然启动离婚程序往往是冲动的，此时最需要的是所有当事人停下脚步深呼吸，借助专业心理健康专家的介入来平复情绪，而不是直接在法庭上摧毁家庭。 谈及律所的客户构成时，塞克斯顿透露其男女委托人的比例基本各占一半，且多为高净值人士、各行业精英或其配偶。针对婚姻中极具破坏性的“不忠”议题，史蒂文询问男女在出轨动因上是否存在根本差异。塞克斯顿根据自己25年主导拆解婚姻的实务观察指出，男性被抓现行的频率明显远高于女性。这并不意味着男性在统计学上的出轨几率必然更高，而是因为男性的出轨行为往往表现得极其愚蠢且缺乏周密规划（“scattershot stupid ways”）。相比之下，女性的不忠通常意味着关系在心理与情感层面已经不可逆转地走到了绝对终点，出轨往往是她们彻底离开前寻找的“情感软着陆”，或是对这段死去的婚姻所下的最后通牒；而数百名坐在塞克斯顿对面的男性，则往往是在被抓现行或大祸临头时，依然表现得茫然失措。 - **离婚律师的干预门槛**：优先评估当事人认知的客观性；遭遇突发变故（失业、出轨暴露）时，倡导心理治疗介入而非仓促离婚。 - **客户画像**：男女客户比例约为 1:1，集中于高净值人群及其配偶。 - **婚外情行为差异**： - **男性**：更容易被抓现行，行为往往欠缺周密考虑、破绽百出。 - **女性**：通常是关系在情感层面彻底宣告死亡的标志，常作为脱离婚姻的心理缓冲或终局确认。 ### [09:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=575s) 橱柜里的薯片：人性的脆弱与即时满足的代价 詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）谈到了许多当事人在出轨后的真实心理状态。许多人坐在他的办公室里，茫然又懊悔地坦白：“这跟我妻子没有任何关系，我深爱我的妻子。我真的不知道自己当时为什么会那么做，事情就这么发生了。”在文明社会的道德语境中，人们很容易站在道德制高点指责这种行为不可思议、不可原谅。但詹姆斯指出，人性的软弱其实远比我们想象的普遍，就像家里橱柜里放着一包薯片一样简单而残酷。 你明知道自己不该吃垃圾食品，你内心渴望健康、渴望保持体形，清晨醒来时你拥有钢铁般的自律与决心。然而到了晚上七八点，结束了漫长而疲惫的一天，身心俱疲的你觉得自己“理应得到一点小小的犒赏”。此时只要那包薯片就在眼前，你就会毫不犹豫地拆开吃下去。人往往更容易控制物理环境，却很难时刻控制大脑与欲望。当人们处于孤单、饥饿、愤怒或疲惫（HALT 状态）等脆弱交织的时刻，外界突如其来的温暖联结、调情的快感以及与心仪对象之间的化学反应，会让人产生最本能的情感渴求。悲剧的核心在于，那一瞬间人们完全抛开了后果。正如詹姆斯总结的格言：“自律是用你‘当下想要的’去换取你‘最想要的’。”但在诱惑和疲倦袭来的瞬间，人们极易将眼光从“最想要的东西”上移开。 - 人性在疲惫、孤独和缺乏即时关注时最容易被本能支配。 - 诱惑面前的短视行为并非源于对伴侣失去爱意，而是源于对长期后果的盲目与当下自控力的崩溃。 --- ### [11:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=664s) 伴侣为何提出离婚？优先级下滑与被忽视的危机 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着话题向詹姆斯抛出了一个切身的问题：如果未来有一天，自己的未婚妻走进詹姆斯的律所要求起诉离婚，从大数据的统计规律来看，最可能的原因会是什么？詹姆斯毫不犹豫地给出了最典型的答案：并不是出轨或家暴，而是“你不再真正注视她、不再关注她，她在你重要事项的排行榜中一路滑落到了中下游”。 对于史蒂文这样典型的商业精英与高成就者而言，生活充满了极度密集的行程：今天在这一侧海岸，明天飞往另一个国家，日程表时刻处于超负荷运转中，必须通过冷酷的优先级排序（triage）来决定舍弃什么。詹姆斯指出，伴侣感受到的危机感往往不是忙碌本身造成的，而是伴侣被安置在生活日程中的位置。在那些高强度生活却依然婚姻美满的案例中，关键往往只在于一种微小却持续的确定感——比如在节目录制的间隙发一条信息说“我只有一分钟休息时间，只想告诉你我正在想你”，或者在赶往机场的车上听到一首歌时对她说“这首歌让我想起了你，期待下周见你”。这种微小的举动无需耗费巨额成本，对于全职带娃、照顾生病老人的普通家庭同样适用。很多坐在离婚律师对面的女性，其伴侣都是无可挑剔的优秀保护者与财富提供者，但婚姻走向破裂的根本原因，恰恰是她们在关系中失去了被看见的感觉。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 优先级下滑与婚姻破裂路径 accDescr: 展示高成就者因长期专注事业导致伴侣情感被忽视进而走向婚姻破裂的心理机制 subgraph External["高压生活常态"] A["高强度事业追求与频繁差旅"] --> B["严苛的日程优先级筛选 (Triage)"] end subgraph Drift["关系的无声滑落"] B --> C["伴侣在优先级列表中逐渐跌落"] C --> D["停止关注伴侣细节 / 缺乏情感联结"] end subgraph Crisis["婚姻危机与破裂"] D --> E["伴侣感受到被忽视与边缘化"] E --> F["即便物质保障充足，依然选择起诉离婚"] end subgraph Solution["破局关键：微小确认"] G["碎片时间的即时表达<br/>(1分钟视频 / 专属信息)"] -.->|打断滑落趋势| C end ``` - 优秀保护者和财富提供者（Provider/Protector）同样容易遭遇婚变，金钱无法弥补情感上的被边缘化。 - 维系联结的核心不在于颠覆生活方式，而在于建立日常化、确定性的微小触点。 --- ### [13:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=797s) 极致专注与“哪怕只有一分钟”的跨屏联结 面对詹姆斯的剖析，史蒂文坦承这种关注习惯对自己而言并不自然。他的思维模式有着极端的单点专注特性：一旦进入工作状态，大脑会惊人地屏蔽掉外部的一切信息，不知不觉就能沉浸工作十四个小时而完全忘记与外界联络。但这种特质硬币的反面是，只要他们明确安排了共度的时间，史蒂文就能做到全神贯注——放下手机，隔绝一切干扰，百分之百地陪伴未婚妻。詹姆斯对这种“完全在场”的高质量陪伴给予了高度肯定，因为当今绝大多数伴侣面临的普遍困境是“同室操戈”式的假性亲密——两人虽然坐在一起，心思却各自陷在手机屏幕的世界里。 史蒂文进一步分享道，自己天生被与自己性格截然相反的人所吸引，而他的许多高管朋友也是如此。两个同样高压、极致专注的人如果生活在一起，空气里的紧绷感往往会令人窒息；但互补性格的代价是极其容易产生误解，因为每个人都天然地预设对方和自己拥有相同的思维范式与感受。为了克服这种天然的隔阂，史蒂文摸索出了适合两人的相处契约：出差离开前向未婚妻承诺，无论日程多满，每天一定会打一个 FaceTime 视频电话，“哪怕只有短短的一分钟”。就在录制当天早上，未婚妻还特意发来信息表达感谢。这种看似微不足道的主动打卡，彻底消解了距离带来的失联焦虑。 --- ### [15:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=925s) 为什么我们把神圣的伴侣关系过成了“该死的工作”？ 詹姆斯由衷赞叹史蒂文在亲密关系中展现出的学习姿态，并指出了一个荒谬的社会文化双标现象：如果一个人在书桌上摆着查尔斯·杜希格（Charles Duhigg）的《习惯的力量》或是史蒂芬·柯维（Stephen Covey）的《高效能人士的七个习惯》，所有人都会投去赞许的目光，认为他事业成功却依然在打磨锋芒、追求卓越；但如果桌上放的是一本詹姆斯写的亲密关系指南《如何保持相爱》（*How to Stay in Love*），旁人就会窃窃私语：“史蒂文的感情是不是出问题了？他的婚姻亮红灯了吗？”整个社会在骨子里羞于承认人类在维系情感联结上的笨拙与无知，似乎对亲密关系的主动钻研反而成了无能的象征。 詹姆斯生动地将恋爱与婚姻比作一场漫长的职业生涯： 求职阶段的约会就像是到处投递简历，迫切渴望找到一份能施展才华、获得认可与优厚回报的好工作；当你终于通过层层面试拿到录用通知时，你兴奋地向所有朋友炫耀办公室有多气派、未来的晋升空间有多广阔。然而仅仅过去三年，许多人就陷入了可怕的职业倦怠，每天早上醒来只剩下抱怨：“操，又是这该死的工作，我还得去应付它。” 人们彻底遗忘了当初梦寐以求的初心：在这个浩瀚而冷酷的世界上，终于找到了彼此最钟爱的那个人，发誓要成为彼此的后盾，照亮对方的盲区，共同面对衰老与变迁，无论遭遇顺境还是绝境都永不再孤单。既然我们在职场中把定期沟通、目标对齐和绩效考核（Performance Review）视为理所当然，为什么换到决定人生幸福底色的婚姻中，主动复盘并努力把这份“终身事业”经营好，反倒被看作是一件怪异的事？ - 商业学习被视为进取心，而关系学习却常被污名化为“关系破裂的补救”。 - 恋爱如同求职应聘，蜜月如同入职兴奋期，长久婚姻则需要抵抗日常的倦怠感。 - 维系高质量亲密关系需要如同职场精进一般的自我审视与定期情感复盘。 ### [18:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1114s) 媒体滤镜下的“毫不费力”：浪漫喜剧是情感层面的色情片 对话从工作管理切入：管理者管理多个团队时，绝不可能说“我们不需要做绩效评估”。然而在亲密关系中，人们却常常预设感情应当是完全“毫不费力”（effortless）的。Steven 提到，社交媒体极大地扭曲了这种认知——他的女友曾关注一对在 Instagram 上展现得极其完美的夫妻，持续看了五年，潜意识中推高了对现实关系的期待，直到最近得知男方其实早就出轨了。社交平台是一个二维的虚假切片，真实的杂乱冲突被完全隐藏，因为在网上公开关系裂痕无法吸粉。 James 深刻指出，大众对关系的理解不仅被社交网络误导，更深受影视剧的塑造。他直言不讳地指出：“浪漫喜剧（Rom-com）或爱情电影，本质上就是情感层面的色情片（emotional version of pornography）。”它们是经过高度美化、截取片段的虚假产物，旨在最大化刺激人们在视觉和情感上最强烈的冲动。虽然片中也有冲突，但结尾总是被收拾得干干净净，两人牵手走向远方。 影视剧总在最美好的时刻戛然而止，但现实生活是一整个充满不可控变量的复杂生态系统。一段故事究竟是喜剧还是悲剧，全取决于你把故事的结尾停在哪里。现实中，伴侣走入生活，面临外在压力、个人情绪的波动以及“你、我、我们”三者间的动态平衡。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 浪漫主义虚构与现实亲密关系的对比 accDescr: 展示影视和社媒制造的虚假认知如何与现实中伴侣的复杂生活产生脱节 subgraph Illusion["虚假切片（影视 / 社交媒体）"] A["浪漫喜剧 & 完美网贴"] --> B["极致的情感刺激与完美结局"] B --> C["制造错觉：好感情应当毫不费力"] end subgraph Reality["现实生活生态"] D["复杂外部世界"] --> E["你、我、我们的三方动态平衡"] E --> F["需要持续倾注精力与共同维护"] end C -.->|"认知落差与幻灭"| Reality ``` - 社会在打破二元对立（如性别角色、事业与家庭的界限）方面已取得长足进步，但在感情观上，很多人仍困在非黑即白的极端思维中：要么觉得感情该顺滑无阻，要么走向另一极——认为婚姻就是苦役、不是为了快乐而是纯粹的承诺。 - 统计数据显示，约 56% 的婚姻以离婚收场，这足以证明亲密关系在现实中绝非轻而易举的事。 --- ### [21:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1302s) 关系需要“付出关注”：表层理由背后的“偏离主线” 面对“关系是否应该很简单或者很难”的疑问，James 解释道：如果“难”的定义是必须持续投入某种程度的注意力，那么它确实是难的；但退一步看，“保持关注”本身真的有那么困难吗？人们生活中有无数的智能工具，既然可以通过设置提醒来处理日常事务，为什么就不能给伴侣设置一个心理提醒，确保对方始终在自己的视野之内？忙于事业、追求成就并不代表不爱对方，但正因生活忙碌，才更需要有意识的机制来保持专注。 Steven 随后转换视角提问：如果像自己这样的人未来走进事务所提出离婚，通常会给出什么理由？James 一针见血地指出，当事人给出的“表面原因”往往是： - 某一方出轨，爱上了别人； - 爆发了一场极其惨烈、说尽狠话的争吵； - 遭遇毁灭性的财务崩盘，导致伴侣因看不到未来而逃离； - 某一方做出了严重背叛信任的灾难性抉择。 然而，这些都只是冰山一角的“表层陈述”（presenting reason）。更深层次的根本原因只有一个：“我们偏离了主线（We lost the plot）。” 婚姻原本是一本书里承前启后的重要篇章。地球上有 80 亿人，两个原本各自摸索人生的个体能够相遇，带着各自随时间形成的互补心理特质（pathologies）交汇在一起，构建起属于两人的交集（Venn diagram），往里面填入经历与回忆。单膝下跪求婚是一个极其重要的“人生标点符号”（punctuation mark）——它象征着巨大的乐观精神，象征着谦卑与奉献，向对方许诺“我们不再孤独，我们要携手书写下一章”。然而，很多人在走过这个神圣节点后，却在日复一日的琐碎中遗忘了最初的故事主线。 --- ### [26:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1570s) 滑坡效应：无意识的微小疏离如何摧毁婚姻 之所以会“偏离主线”，最核心的诱因正是：你停止了最初带你走到这一刻的行为——你不再付出关注，不再将对方视作第一优先级。 James 提出了一个核心概念——**“滑坡效应”（Slippage）**。这种退化绝大多数时候是完全无意识发生的。人们在完成结婚、订婚等大目标后，心理上往往会松懈下来：“好了，这个搞定了，现在我可以专注于别的事情了。”滑坡正是由此开始的： - 它表现为一次又一次微小的、不经意的情感断联（small disconnections）； - 单看每一次断联，往往微不足道，就像“没有一滴雨水会认为自己该对洪水负责”； - 然而，微小疏离的不断累加，最终汇聚成了引发致命危机的洪流。 更为致命的是，人们往往在当下能够觉察到这些微小的滑坡，却普遍选择视而不见，认为这“不值得大惊小怪或为此争吵”。James 直言，这种逃避短期不适的认知偏差（cognitive bias），正是能让他这辈子永远有离婚官司可打的原因： - 在追求快乐与逃避痛苦之间，**人类“对痛苦的厌恶”每一次都会压倒“对快乐的渴望”**； - 正如阿片类药物（止痛）危机在社会层面上远比可卡因（寻求极度兴奋）危机更加深重一样，人们宁愿容忍隐秘的溃烂，也不愿面对当下哪怕一丝一毫坦诚沟通所带来的即时刺痛。 ### [28:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1719s) 逃避痛苦的人性本能与“灵魂伴侣”的认知陷阱 人类最底层的驱动力之一就是逃避痛苦与不适。任何科学家或神经生物学家（比如我们的朋友 Andrew Huberman）都会证实，摆脱痛苦是人类自我掌控中最核心的冲动。然而，大众文化中盛行的一种虚假叙事却宣称“真正的爱情应当是轻松自然的”；许多人因此陷入误区，认为只要亲密关系中出现了任何不适或摩擦，就一定是哪里做错了，甚至怀疑自己没有遇到真正的“灵魂伴侣”。他们幻想中的真爱是毫不费力的——伴侣应该心有灵犀，永远不用你说出口就能完全懂你的需求，走在你的情绪前面。 James 犀利地反驳了这种不切实际的幻想。他以自己为例自嘲道：他今年 53 岁，接受了长达 20 年的专业心理治疗，在对自己进行极深度的内省后，充其量也只能搞懂自己大概 70%。“我就活在这个躯壳里面，对自己也才掌握七成；凭什么仅仅因为我们睡在同一张床上、交换了体液，我就必须百分之百懂你、预判你的一切？”他直言，要求关系中永远舒适、毫无阻力是极不公平的。正如他在离婚诉讼中所做的那样，他整天都在对客户说那些刺耳但真实的话，他的职责是说客户“需要听的话”，而不是“想听的话”。当咨询结束客户对他说“我的天，我现在感觉好多了”时，他总会回应：“这很好，但这不是我的初衷。”因为他不是心理咨询师，他是告知真相的律师。在关系中亦是如此，若想维系一生的深度联结，就必须学会在不舒服的真相面前保持清醒，不让原本美好的故事偏离轨道。 - **对自我的认知极限**：James 直言即便自己 53 岁且坚持心理治疗 20 年，也仅能理解自身约 70%，因此苛求伴侣对自己达到 100% 的心照不宣既荒谬又不公平。 - **真相大于安慰**：职业律师的核心原则是告知客户现实情况，而非提供情绪止痛药；婚姻中的沟通同样需要直面真实，而非粉饰太平。 --- ### [31:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1861s) 庭审律师的情绪掌控术：别在“积水成灾”前指责过错 Steven 提出一个普遍的现实痛点：许多伴侣都能察觉到关系正在微妙地下滑——争吵变得频繁，彼此倾听减少，语调变得刺耳尖锐。面对地上正在形成、但尚未泛滥成灾的“小积水”，人们究竟该如何开口？James 从自身职业出发拆解了应对之道。作为出庭律师，他的日常工作就是在法庭上操纵和引导所有人的情绪状态：让法官喜欢自己的客户、反感对方；让对手感到害怕，让客户感到安心；甚至让法庭速记员和法警都喜欢自己，好让他们休庭时在法官面前夸奖自己。他强调，在亲密关系中运用情绪引导杠杆并无任何卑劣之处，关键在于你的出发点是维护彼此的联结。 对话失败的根源往往在于叙事方式的错误。一旦你开门见山地说“我们之间出了问题”或“你做错了什么”，对方会本能地进入防御状态（“我不是故意的”、“这不是我的错”）。高情商的沟通应将重点从“问责”转向“观察变化”：“你有没有注意到我们之间有些不一样了？还记得以前我们怎么沟通的吗？如果是我做了什么让你感觉不舒服，请一定要告诉我。”伴侣甚至可以翻出婚礼相册，重温彼此深爱、把对方视作生命唯一的时刻，以此为契机共同探讨现在的改变。James 举了极具代表性的性生活减少为例：如果劈头盖脸质问“我们做爱变少了”或“口交不如以前频繁了”，立刻会激化成双方互相翻旧账的恶性互撕；但若换一种方式唤醒共同的美好记忆：“昨天我还在想我们上次度假的那个周末，两个人甚至都没迈出房间一步，那种亲密合一的感觉太美妙了。我感觉最近我们似乎没有那么亲近，如果是我哪里做得不好，我很想把它调整好。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 冲突沟通的两种路径 accDescr: 对比指责模式引发的防御性恶性循环与好奇协作模式带来的非防御性修复过程。 subgraph DefendMode ["指责模式：触发防御与升级"] A["直接指出问题：'我们最近出问题了/你做错了'"] --> B["本能自卫反弹：'我不是故意的/都怪你'"] B --> C["算旧账与抱怨升级：'因为你总不在家/你花太多钱'"] C --> D["彻底演变成破坏性争吵"] end subgraph ConnectMode ["联结模式：唤醒记忆与共同解决"] E["锚定美好回忆：'看我们结婚照时多甜蜜/那次度假多开心'"] --> F["温和觉察变化：'你有没有注意到我们最近语气有些变了？'"] F --> G["主动承担责任：'如果是我无意间做错了什么，请务必告诉我'"] G --> H["建立非防御性对话，达成预防性维护"] end ``` --- ### [34:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2068s) “先道歉”的战术谦卑与快节奏对话中的倾听困境 James 透露了自己在法律对抗中的一项“秘密武器”：在对抗升温前展现极度的谦逊，率先道歉。当他遇到素未谋面却表现得极具攻击性、盛气凌人的对手律师时，激进反击往往收效甚微，他反而会率先致歉：“实在抱歉，如果我最初的交涉中哪句话让您觉得我不够尊重您，或者没有重视您的观点，我由衷向您道歉。我这个人有时候容易打断别人，如果我冒犯了您，这绝非我的本意。”面对这样的姿态，对方毫无招架之力，只能尴尬地退让解释：“没有没有，我平时说话就是这个腔调。”局势随之迅速降温。在婚姻中，这种“先道歉”的战术谦逊同样拥有扭转局面的巨大威力，它能在小摩擦演变成毁灭性风暴之前完成预防性维护。 Steven 对此深有共鸣。他反思自己与伴侣相处七年后的变化：刚在一起时彼此都极具耐心，如今面对问题却总想急匆匆地敷衍过去。如果任由这种缺乏耐心的沟通模式蔓延一二十年，伴侣解决问题的能力将彻底退化，而破解的关键就在于慢下来、更专注地倾听对方的想法。James 坦承自己同样深受这一缺陷的困扰，他的大脑飞速运转，职业习惯总驱使他想要“快点把飞机降落”（land the plane），满脑子都是“时间就是金钱，赶紧说重点”。他承认自己总喜欢打断别人，自以为知道对方接下来要说什么，但在亲密关系中，这种预判往往是完全错误的。他特别指出，承认男女之间的差异并非主张孰优孰劣，而是客观承认两性在社会化经历、生活体验和感知世界的方式上大相径庭，唯有放慢节奏、放下预判，才能实现真正的倾听。 - **先发制人的道歉艺术**：在冲突初期主动承认自己的盲点（如容易打断他人、措辞不当），能瞬间剥夺对方的攻击借口，使对话重回理智轨道。 - **“让飞机降落”的急躁思维**：快节奏的功利心态会导致在对话中失去倾听耐心，急于得出结论反而会切断与伴侣的情感共鸣。 - **尊重两性思维与经验的客观差异**：理解两性在生活经历与感知上的根本不同，是避免自以为是、停止打断伴侣的前提。 ### [37:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2250s) 情感沟通的“菜单法则”：倾听还是解决问题？ 詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）坦言，承认自己对伴侣的心理机制并非了如指掌，是维系关系中极其宝贵的一步。他自嘲道，自己花了整整四五十年才真正领悟一件事：当他在一段亲密关系中，女伴回到家开始抱怨令她心烦的事情时，她想要的根本不是男性朋友间的那套互动。詹姆斯打比方说，如果他遇到棘手事打电话给史蒂文（Steven Bartlett），说自己在管教某个儿子上遇到了难题，史蒂文要是仅仅回复一句“吉姆，那一定很难熬吧”，他心里肯定会抓狂：“废话，当然很难，不然我打给你干嘛？你这么聪明，快帮我出出主意啊！”然而女性通常恰恰相反，她们最核心的诉求是被倾听、获得情感上的共鸣与支持。 伴侣之间完全可以在平时平心静气时展开这种探讨：“在此时此刻我们没有冲突，但每次你带着烦心事来找我时，我的本能反应就是扔出一堆解决方案；既然经营关系就像一份工作，我想做好这份工作，那我该怎么做才更好？”史蒂文对此深有感鸣，他透露自己与未婚妻也经历过类似磨合——未婚妻遇到困难时需要陪伴与倾听，有时也想要建议（尽管彼此思路完全相反）；而当史蒂文自己身处逆境时，他甚至完全不想开口谈论，只想伴侣静静陪在身边。 面对这种需求错位，詹姆斯提出了一个极具操作性的“情感菜单”（The Menu）机制。当伴侣遭遇挫折时，不要盲目去猜，直接把选择权给对方： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 情绪支持菜单流程 accDescr: 伴侣在面对压力时，提供五种不同的支持选项供其选择 A["伴侣遭遇挫折/情绪低落"] --> B{"抛出情感菜单（约30秒）"} B --> C["选项 1：纯粹倾听并表达爱意"] B --> D["选项 2：提供建议与解决方案"] B --> E["选项 3：讲笑话/转移注意力"] B --> F["选项 4：肢体亲密（拥抱、挠痒、滚床单）"] B --> G["选项 5：外出散步（可聊可不聊）"] C & D & E & F & G --> H{"伴侣选择"} H -->|"明确选择"| I["准确提供所需支持"] H -->|"回答'不知道'"| J["主动选一项尝试，不适随时调整"] ``` 詹姆斯强调，就像伴侣喊饿时你会询问“想吃寿司、烤奶酪吐司还是汉堡”一样，面对情绪时也可以说：“我这里有一份菜单，你想点哪个？我可以只听你说并告诉你我爱你；我可以提供应对方案；我可以给你讲个今天发生的趣事逗你开心；或者我们去卧室打滚温存一下换换脑子；再或者去散步，你想聊就聊，不想聊就不聊。”如果对方回答“我不知道”，那你就主动选一项去试，并告诉对方“如果不舒服随时叫停，我绝对不会介意”。这个过程只需30秒，却能彻底终结像无头苍蝇一样盲目乱猜的消耗。 --- ### [41:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2481s) 拯救婚姻的每周5分钟仪式：“3件事”练习 当史蒂文问及，如果只能向所有听众推荐一个最能提高伴侣白头偕老概率的关系仪式，那会是什么时，詹姆斯给出了一个极简却极具穿透力的方案：**每周特定抽出时间，向伴侣明确说出 3 件你真正欣赏/喜欢对方的事，且每周的内容都要不一样**。如果想进阶到“高级版”，把这件原本只需30秒的事变成每周全神贯注投入的5分钟，那它将产生惊人的关系复利。 詹姆斯援引了一个据传与达赖喇嘛有关的经典公案：一位位高权重、日程爆满的企业高管花重金求见达赖喇嘛寻求内心平静，大师建议他每天冥想15分钟；高管抱怨自己忙得连15分钟都抽不出来，大师随即改口说：“那你每天需要冥想一个小时。”感情维系同理，如果你连每周给伴侣5分钟的耐心都挤不出来，那么未来你将不得不为争吵、冷战或离婚法庭赔上数十上百个小时。詹姆斯即将出版的新书正是围绕这套系统化经营爱情的方法论展开。 在进阶版仪式中，伴侣可以通过邮件、便签或短信（哪怕口头说有压力），每周完成以下两项基本输出： - 列出 3 件你深爱伴侣的具体品质或细节； - 列出本周内对方做过的、让你感到深深被爱的 3 个具体瞬间（例如“你周一给我发的那条温柔信息，让我感到无比被爱”）。 --- ### [43:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2600s) 为什么人们抗拒亲密：内心深处对“不配被爱”的终极恐惧 史蒂文提出疑问：哪怕这个练习如此简单有效，很多坐在屏幕前的人听完后依然不会付诸行动，阻碍他们的内心独白究竟是什么？詹姆斯直言，很多人表面上觉得“太迟了、没有意义了”，但隐藏在最深处、人们不敢大声说出来的真正秘密是——**极度的恐惧**。 这种恐惧并非源于对关系未来的担忧，而是人类最底层的存在危机：**“我们深信自己根本不配被爱（not worthy of love）”**。每个人潜意识里都有一个巨大的梦魇：“如果你真正了解我，你就绝对不可能再爱我。”人们恐惧一旦伴侣穿透表象，看清自己内心深处的全部软弱、恐惧、自私阴暗的念头、病态与不堪，爱意就会烟消云散。为了自保，人们在关系中精心扮演着一个只展现优点的“角色”，并下意识地认为伴侣爱的只是这个虚构的角色。因此，任何要求深层暴露彼此真实想法、互相拷问“你爱我什么”、“我做错了什么”的亲密互动，都会让人感到被刺痛和退缩。 詹姆斯建议，为了打破防御，可以将每周的系统练习扩充为一个兼具反思与趣味的完整结构： - **3 件我深爱你的事**； - **本周你做的 3 件让我感到被爱的事**； - **3 件我原本可以做得更好的事**（或坦诚交换彼此希望对方改善的地方）； - **本周你做的 3 件让我特别想和你上床的事**（用轻松性感的内容作为结尾，增添亲密情趣）。 --- ### [45:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2739s) 戳穿“伴侣不善言辞”的借口与直面亲密恐惧 针对有些人可能会推脱说“我的伴侣戴夫（Dave）或乔安妮（Joanne）性格木讷，根本不是那种擅长言语亲密的人，做这种事会觉得尴尬癌发作（cringe）”，詹姆斯毫不留情地斥之为借口（"I absolutely call bullshit on that"）。詹姆斯情绪激动地驳斥道：哪怕戴夫是个完全不善言辞的挖沟工人，他能决定和你同居、走进婚姻、拿出辛辛苦苦赚来的血汗钱买钻戒放在柜台上求婚，难道戴夫会连“喜欢你哪三点”都憋不出来吗？ 詹姆斯一针见血地指出，这不是“能不能”或“能力够不够”的问题，而是“想不想”的问题。如果对方抗拒去做，那就必须直面更核心的命题：为什么这件事会让你感到如此不舒服？ 史蒂文坦承，这确实戳中了很多人的软肋。甚至连他自己在潜意识深处，也长期对亲密关系抱有一种莫名的恐惧与情感疏离（disconnected）。很多人即便身处一段充满爱的关系里，在更深的心理层面上，依然会像戴着情感盔甲一样，害怕完全卸下防备后带来的脆弱感。 ### [47:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2825s) 保持简单的沟通仪式：不要让弗洛伊德介入亲密关系 詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）强调，伴侣之间的亲密沟通应该保持极简，不需要把对话搞成复杂的心理学深挖。沟通练习的目的不是去追问“你对我的爱根植于何处”、“我们连接的本质是什么”或者“这如何嵌入更广泛的背景”，比如抱怨“我成长过程中和我母亲的关系极具挑战，我觉得你填补了我心中的某些创伤”。詹姆斯直言：“大伙儿，我们没必要这样，西格蒙德·弗洛伊德（Sigmund Freud）用不着出现在亲密关系里。” 真正有效的互动非常简单直接。他现场向主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）示范：在彼此的关系里，只要说出“我喜欢你的三件事”或者“我们之间经历过哪三件逗笑彼此的事”就足够了。正如他们当下的友谊一样，能坐在某人对面看着对方说“你知道我喜欢你哪一点吗？”，这本身就是一种巨大的快乐与美好体验。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 复杂化沟通与简单亲密练习对比 accDescr: 对比过度心理分析带来的阻碍与轻量日常分享带来的情感拉近。 subgraph Heavy["过度心理分析（不可取）"] A["探究创伤根源"] --> B["弗洛伊德式精神剖析"] B --> C["沉重且令人抗拒"] end subgraph Simple["极简日常练习（推荐做法）"] D["分享喜欢对方的3件事"] --> E["回忆逗笑彼此的3个瞬间"] E --> F["轻量、愉悦、拉近距离"] end ``` ### [47:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2879s) 依恋风格与亲密关系的“健身房酸痛”隐喻 针对斯蒂芬提出的关于“回避型”（avoidant）与“焦虑型”（anxious）依恋风格理论是否符合他在实务中的观察，詹姆斯表示认同，但他更倾向于用“健身锻炼”来比喻人与人之间的连接。他困惑于为什么人们对待情感关系的态度会与对待健身如此不同：如果你很久没去健身房，初次锻炼后肌肉一定会酸痛，你举不起大重量，必须从轻量开始，而且接下来的两三天都会感到浑身酸痛。 如果有人因为练完酸痛就说“哎呀我太难受了，我再也不去健身房了”，那这个人就永远无法拥有好身材，也永远跨不过酸痛期；要是等一个月再去练一次，同样的过程只会重演一遍。人必须穿透那个令人不适的阶段，才能进入感觉极佳、不再容易酸痛的状态——哪怕偶尔跟安德鲁·休伯曼（Andrew Huberman）一起高强度训练又被练到酸痛，但大部分时候人只会感到强壮与健康。伴侣之间的微型沟通练习同理： - 有些星期你可能会觉得这种练习尴尬、别扭，甚至要绞尽脑汁才能凑出“这周你让我感到被爱的几件事”。 - 忍受这一点点轻微的不适感，恰恰是防止感情滑坡的关键屏障。 - 坦然面对微小的不适对话，远胜于放任两人之间的冷漠与隔阂日积月累，最终裂变成一道无法逾越的巨大鸿沟。 ### [49:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2977s) 53岁依然在与7岁时的自己对话：极度自立背后的创伤与恐惧 斯蒂芬进一步探讨依恋理论的真实性，并询问詹姆斯作为一位整天畅谈爱情之道的专家，自己在现实中依然挣扎于什么。詹姆斯承认，我们都是童年经历的产物。即便是53岁的他，在心理治疗中依然惊异地发现，自己如今面临的大多数挑战，根源依然是“当年那个7岁的吉姆（Jim）”。他解释自己从不在公众面前拿自己的私人关系做示范，因为理论上的精通与实际生活的践行完全是两码事；而且他的个人经历（比如经历过一场非常平和友好的离婚）只是他和前妻独特性格与境遇的产物，样本量太小，当成通用分析基础是非常危险的。 詹姆斯剖析了自己一生的软肋与核心创伤：无论在私人感情还是职场中，他最大的困难就是**承认自己需要帮助**。他的童年极度匮乏支持——父亲是严重的酗酒者，母亲则忙于照料这个严重酗酒的伴侣，他的需求长期被忽视。年幼的詹姆斯如果表达饥饿，得到的不是“我给你做早餐”，而是带着羞辱语气的责备：“什么？你连自己的早餐都不会做吗？你有什么毛病？”这种环境让幼小的他背负了沉重的羞耻感。 随后，斯蒂芬展示了一张詹姆斯小时候的旧照片：大约9岁的他留着平头，房间墙上贴着李小龙（Bruce Lee）和查克·诺里斯（Chuck Norris）的海报，练习着冲绳刚柔流空手道（Okinawan Goju-Ryu Karate）。詹姆斯看着照片动情地回忆： - 那时候的他极其孤独、悲伤，之所以疯狂迷恋武术，是因为武术展现了一种清晰的男子气概——一种通过后天纪律和刻苦练习就能建立的“超级自卫力量”，而不是靠基因中奖恩赐的超能力。 - 他当时执着于获得这种力量来获得安全感，逼迫自己成为一个“全能、万事靠自己”的人。这种驱动力并非源于健康的自我实现愿望，而是源于深入骨髓的恐惧与悲伤：他极度害怕自己一旦开口求助或索要善意，换来的只会是拒绝与羞辱。 - 这种机制让他学会了包揽一切——他做饭极佳，擅长几乎所有下定决心去做的事，这也直接铸就了他的职场成就、财务安全与社会声望。 - 但直到多年之后他才明白，这套曾经保护他生存的铠甲，同样成了他人生与情感中最巨大的障碍。 ### [54:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=3243s) 与内在小孩和解：倾听伤痛，但不让它掌握人生的方向盘 在53岁的年纪，詹姆斯终于通过持续的心理咨询学会了与那个孤独的小男孩对话。他不再试图抹杀或责怪那个部分的自己，而是心怀感激地对他说：“我听到你了，很高兴你还在，但你现在不必再那么害怕了。”他感慨，每个人心底深处大概都躲着一个缩在房间角落、感到迷茫孤单的小男孩或小女孩；承认脑海中存在这个声音不仅不代表软弱或缺乏男子气概，反而是真正的力量。那个声音曾为了保护你而拼尽全力，你不需要把它暴打一顿逐出心门，但同样不能由着它来驾驶你人生的方向盘（"You don't have to beat that out of you, but you don't have to listen to it either. You don't have to let it drive the car."）。 面对照片中那个年幼的自己，詹姆斯感叹儿童的纯粹与本真。孩子的心中没有仇恨，除了讨厌午睡之外，他们唯一的愿望就是去爱、去拥抱、去玩耍；如果不小心伤到了别人，他们会惊慌失色，因为他们从无恶意。然而，成年人却在成长过程中被现实痛击，异化成了不断互相攻击的刺猬。詹姆斯总结道，归根结底，所有人渴望的不过是回到被世界打得鼻青脸肿之前的那个温热、开放的自我。而爱情的真正意义，或许就是给彼此一个契机，重新连接到那份纯粹的渴望：“我只想要你爱我，我想被你所爱；我想让你觉得值得我的爱，我也想感觉自己配得上你的爱。为什么事情非得搞得这么难呢？” --- *(播客中段插播赞助商环节：斯蒂芬·巴特利特介绍其共同拥有的创作者经济变现平台 Stan，宣传其销售数字产品、课程与会员的功能，以及奖金池10万美元的 "Dare to Dream" 30天连续发帖挑战活动。)* ### [57:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=3460s) 商业赞助：Pipedrive 销售 CRM 系统 Steven Bartlett 提到，许多团队在发展过程中会逐渐偏离最核心的任务——销售，转而被繁重的行政事务拖累。这种效率流失往往是潜移默化的，等察觉时势头已经受损。他分享自己在十年前接触到 Pipedrive，随后旗下多家公司的团队一直沿用至今。Pipedrive 是一款操作简单但功能强大的销售 CRM，能清晰展现销售漏斗中的交易进展，并将大量单调、重复、耗时的销售环节自动化，从而为团队每月节省出大量宝贵时间重回业务本身。 该平台支持将 CRM 与多个电子邮箱深度同步，方便整个团队在一个界面中高效协同。目前已有超过 10 万家企业采用该系统促进业务增长。 - 赞助商专属福利：访问 `pipedrive.com/ceo` 可申请 30 天免费试用，无需绑定信用卡或提前付款。 --- ### [58:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=3523s) 童年创伤、过度独立与亲密关系的防御壁垒 对话切入成长背景对亲密关系的影响。Steven 指出，很多很早就必须极度独立的人，往往源于童年时期父母角色的缺席或家庭不稳定，例如生活在有酗酒问题的家庭中。James Sexton 随即深有共鸣地回忆，自己在大学书店偶然读到《Adult Children of Alcoholics》（酗酒者成年子女康复指南）时大为震撼，感觉作者就像翻看了自己的私人日记。该书剖析的核心原型之一就是强烈的“控制欲”——当原本应该提供安全感的抚养者变得极度不可控、混乱与动荡时，孩子内心会产生一种持续的高度警惕，逼迫自己拼命抓紧一切，最终演化成极度甚至病态的独立。 Steven 补充道，现代社会在过去一二十年里极度推崇“独立”，鼓吹当自己的老板、自主创业、完全依靠自己，而将“依赖”视为软弱和不酷的表现。然而，极度独立与建立深度连结往往处在天平的两端。许多极度独立的人最难维系亲密关系，因为他们不知不觉间为自己筑起了一座带护城河的坚固城堡，将所有潜在的连结拒之门外。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 童年创伤与过度独立的恶性循环 accDescr: 展示从童年不稳定抚养环境到成年后亲密关系防御壁垒的发展脉络 subgraph Trauma["童年创伤根源"] A["抚育者失常 / 酗酒混乱"] --> B["安全感丧失与高度警觉"] end subgraph Defense["防御与人格塑造"] B --> C["病态控制欲<br/>（试图掌控一切以求生存）"] C --> D["极度独立<br/>（筑起带护城河的城堡）"] end subgraph Consequence["亲密关系困境"] D --> E["排斥依赖与脆弱"] E --> F["难以建立真正的亲密连结"] end ``` --- ### [01:00:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=3630s) 撕裂的自我：法庭上的机器与柔软的内心 James Sexton 剖析了自己三十多岁至四十多岁期间最深刻的内心冲突：他曾坚信自己体内存在两个水火不容的人格。一个是他展现给外界的形象——冷酷无情、如同手持铁管般狠辣的诉讼雇佣兵，把专业技能武器化并做到极致。他自信在法庭上拥有如同大提琴家马友友（Yo-Yo Ma）般的天赋，规则明确、节奏紧凑，是受控的混乱；但他的前妻曾直言不讳地指出：“你永远不会爱任何女人像爱法律那样深，任何走进你生活的女人都只能排在法庭之后。你在法庭上游刃有余，在自家客厅里却手足无措、彻底瘫痪。” 另一个被他长期关在衣橱里的自我，则极其细腻脆弱：聊起爱情会眼眶泛红，想到小狗会流泪，看自闭症相亲纪实片《盲目约会》（Love on the Spectrum）一集能哭三四次。在很长一段时间里，James 认为这两股力量势不两立，他戴着耳机大声放着九寸钉乐队（Nine Inch Nails）的工业摇滚，试图彻底扼杀那个软弱温情的自己，把自己完全改造成一台无懈可击的工作机器，因为正是那份狠劲带给了他名声与财富。 - **法庭与客厅的反差**：法庭有清晰明确的条规、既定目标与受控节奏；客厅则充满不可控的情感互动与真实脆弱，缺乏规则让曾经的他感到寸步难行。 - **试图消灭软弱**：耗费了整个 30 岁阶段和大部分 40 岁时光，James 一直在试图彻底剔除自己内心的感性面，误以为只有成为无情的机器才是“终极形态”。 --- ### [01:03:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=3811s) 拥抱双重性：让理性刚强与感性柔软共舞 转折发生在他开始频繁就离婚、情感与人际关系公开交流之后。原本大家邀请他是为了听一名精明的离婚律师揭露行业内幕，他却不知不觉花了大量时间探讨爱、温柔与同理心。James 逐渐意识到，这两种特质绝非水火不容的敌人，而是同一个人格中必须共存的真实切面，并且彼此滋养。若没有极高的敏感度和强大的换位思考能力，他根本无法敏锐洞察法庭上法官、当事人与陪审团的心理，也无法成为顶尖的诉讼律师。 他指出，社会文化强加给男性的性别角色具有极大的僵化性——在过去的观念中，男人仿佛只有两条路可选，要么像克林特·伊斯特伍德（Clint Eastwood）那样冷硬如冰，要么像理查德·西蒙斯（Richard Simmons）那样热情跳脱，一旦流露温柔就会被剥夺男子气概。练习了 20 年巴西柔术的 James 反驳道，垫子上许多能轻易扭断对手脖子的猛汉，私底下恰恰是最温和善良的人。学会让内心的刚强与柔软“共舞”，在需要执行任务时让果断掌舵，在需要体察人心时释放温情，接纳感性非但没有削弱他的职业锋芒，反而让他变得更加完整和真实。 --- ### [01:06:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=3964s) 面对情感困境：停止假装一切安好 针对很多在感情中反复受挫、看着身旁朋友似乎都顺理成章找到幸福而感到自我怀疑与孤独的人，James 认为探寻“为什么这总发生在我身上”是一个绝佳的觉醒起点。解决困境的第一步绝不是硬撑着假装一切都好，而是坦承自己正在泥潭中“溺水”，并展开深度自省：这种模式从何时开始？贯穿其中的共同规律是什么？身旁是否有真正了解自己、愿意直言不讳给出诚实反馈的朋友？ 他指出，现代人最大的心理陷阱在于外部生态环境所制造的虚妄对比——我们无时无刻不在用自己生活里充满失误、尴尬的“花絮与穿帮镜头”（gag reel），去对比别人在社交网络上精心挑选呈现的“人生精彩集锦”（greatest hits），进而陷入无休止的自我否定与焦虑之中。真实面对自我的匮乏，是打破情感僵局的必要开端。 ### [01:07:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4036s) 撕下面具与承认脆弱：告别虚假展现 现代社会整天都在鼓励每个人对外展示自己过得有多好、事业多么蒸蒸日上、状态多么出色、目标多么专注。詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）指出，这种粉饰的背后其实潜藏着极度恐惧——我们害怕一旦说出真实想法，比如承认“我不知道，我觉得自己有时快被淹没了，有时觉得自己打理得挺好，但下一秒又觉得自己快溺水了”，就会被社会排斥。然而，当有人展现出这种坦诚时，往往带着一种极为打动人心的美感。塞克斯顿分享道，常常有人问他为什么说的话能引起那么多人的共鸣，大家给他的评价是：“哥们，你太真实了，直截了当、毫不掩饰又无比诚恳。”这种真实感其实深植于每个人心中，它所需要的仅仅是大胆说出：“我其实没搞明白所有事，这完全没关系，因为我确实搞懂了另外一些事。” 塞克斯顿呼吁人们停止彼此之间毫无意义的吹嘘和演戏。如果每个人能坦白自己在某些领域做得不错，但在另一些方面简直一团糟，人与人之间的交流会变得无比美好。无论是在他接触的那些功成名就的高成就朋友，还是在名流圈子里，外人眼里他们可能风光无限、正在“大杀四方”（murdering it），但他们私下里也清楚自己的人生有许多需要修补的短板。塞克斯顿直言，哪怕是面对主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett），外人都觉得他无可挑剔，但史蒂文同样有需要继续努力的课题；塞克斯顿自己亦是如此，攻克了许多事，却仍在某些领域毫无头绪。在日常生活中，为这种真实的自我暴露留出空间，其重要性绝不亚于每日的健身计划，或是记住某个人的生日。 ### [01:09:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4148s) 错误的生活 KPI 与错置的优先度 当史蒂文问及为什么现代人留给解决“人际联结障碍”的空间如此狭小时，塞克斯顿回答道：“我们所注视的，塑造了我们自身；我们优先考虑的，是被外界规训要优先考虑的东西。”社会长期以来都在教导人们去追逐炫耀性消费（conspicuous consumption），灌输一种以财富多寡、衣着外貌、拥有多少物质来衡量个人价值的单一标准。塞克斯顿认为，如果大家继续把金钱和消费凌驾于一切之上当作核心追求，人类终将走向一片虚无；真正的衡量标准应该转向喜悦、内心的平和，以及找到一种适合自己的个人平衡。 史蒂文对此深表赞同，并指出人们在审视人生的关键绩效指标（KPI）时，往往忽视了一个最简单朴素的问题——“我现在的感觉究竟如何？”大家在不同的成长环境中学会了麻木并关闭内在的自我感受，取而代之的是将“外界怎么看待我”作为首要考量标准。人们生来就拥有一个内在的情感罗盘，每天都在提醒我们真实的感受，但现代人却几乎从未真正校准过它，反而完全被粉丝数量或财富多少等外在数字所绑架。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 内在感受与外界指标的错位 accDescr: 展现人们如何从倾听内在罗盘偏离到追逐外界KPI与物质消费 subgraph Internal ["真实的内在指标"] A["内在情感罗盘<br/>'我现在的感受如何？'"] --> B["追求内心平和、喜悦与平衡"] end subgraph External ["外界规训的衡量体系"] C["外界评价导向<br/>'别人怎么看待我？'"] --> D["炫耀性消费 / 资产 / 粉丝量"] end Internal -.->|"被社会规训与麻木所取代"| External ``` ### [01:10:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4246s) 父亲的愧疚：学会感知情绪而非压抑情绪 塞克斯顿在访谈中向史蒂文倾诉了自己作为父亲最感到羞愧的一件事。他有两个儿子，现年分别是 26 岁和 28 岁（28 岁的大儿子刚在 9 月完婚，也是一名优秀的律师）。回想起大儿子大概五六岁时，遇到了挫折或被伤害了感情而伤心大哭。当时年仅二十多岁的塞克斯顿看着孩子哭泣，内心充满了不知所措与难受——因为深爱孩子，所以无法忍受看到他痛苦。出于这种不安，塞克斯顿一把抓住儿子，盯着他命令道：“控制好你自己，冷静下来，控制好你自己！”当时年幼的孩子竟然真的强忍住泪水做到了。 时隔二十多年，塞克斯顿每每想起那一刻仍深感内疚与自责。他反思自己当时的冲动：一方面是因为自己承受不了目睹孩子痛苦的不适感，另一方面也下意识地觉得这个世界对展露情绪的人向来残酷，想教孩子隐蔽软弱。但他如今坚信那是极其错误的处理方式——无论对男孩还是任何人，都不该苛求他们压抑感受。理智区分“被瞬间的无常情绪所左右”与“试图去压制情绪”非常微妙但关键。他主张应该让情绪走在前面，先识别、体会自己到底在感受什么，并弄清彼此希望获得何种感受： - 在伴侣关系中，应定期进行深层的情感沟通复盘，例如询问对方：“这周我做哪件事让你感受到了被爱？” - 分享具体的正向与负向反馈：“你做了哪些事让我这周感受到了被爱/产生渴望”、“你做了哪些事让我觉得没那么被爱或疏远”。 - 现代人往往不需要更多激进的高压成功学（intense self-help），而是需要更多像《罗杰斯先生的情感天地》（Mr. Rogers）那样充满包容的引导，去学会感知并命名自己的情绪，而非一味控制或回避。 ### [01:14:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4448s) 成瘾的本质与为何真爱无可替代 讨论到现代人为了逃避直面情绪而疯狂寻找消遣时，塞克斯顿引用了心理治疗师戴夫·克卢格曼（Dave Klugman）给出的定义：“成瘾，就是你为了逃避‘如果什么都不做就原本会产生的那种感觉’所做出的任何事情。”塞克斯顿坦白，工作就是他自己最钟爱的“麻醉剂”（narcotic）。回看自己人生中工作最高产、最拼命的阶段，往往对应着个人生活陷入低谷的至暗时刻——不论是经历离婚还是母亲病危。在职场中感受到的掌控感与胜任感，成了他逃避痛苦的避难所；工作越狂热，越说明他在下意识地掩盖不想面对的创伤。因此，他认为在心理咨询开始时，真正唯一值得追问的核心问题就是：“我究竟在害怕感受什么？” 当史蒂文追问，对于那些在感情中不断碰壁、宁可用接下来的十到二十年扑在工作上赚钱买豪宅度假来逃避情感的人，为什么必须把“爱”当作一回事时，塞克斯顿给出了深刻的回答： - 追求世俗的财富与职业成就是极好的目标，本身并无过错。 - 但当一个人行将就木回望整个人生时，绝大多数人脑海中最巅峰、最闪光的记忆，必然是那些“感受到被深爱”或是“自己全心全意去爱”的瞬间。 - 塞克斯顿代理过无数名流，自己如今也体会到了出名的滋味，但他指出，名声不过是“陌生人的赞美”与“陌生人的爱意”。这种追捧就像人造甜味剂（NutraSweet）——它确实有甜味、让人愉悦，但它绝不是真正的糖。 - 外界成千上万人的崇拜，根本无法与一个真正知晓你的过往、深知你的底细却依然全心深爱你的伴侣相提并论。每一个诚实面对内心的人，最终都会明白这一真理。 ### [01:17:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4621s) 浪漫之爱的本质：配对连结与专一满足感 回首整个人生中那些最让人庆幸自己活在世上的瞬间，绝大多数都与“感受到被爱”或“能够去爱他人”密切相关，最理想的状态则是二者兼备。詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）指出，浪漫之爱是人生中极具价值的契机。一个人无需秉持宗教信仰、视婚姻为繁衍后代的神圣圣事，也无需出于“为了国家好”这类宏大的社会责任感去步入婚姻；只要向内审视自己作为人的本能体验与真实感受——自问在何时曾体验过真挚的爱，那些时刻是否是生命中最精彩的巅峰。即使是度假或短暂的快乐，通常也不是孤身一人完成的，而是建立在与他人的联结之上。 真正的核心命题在于：一对一的“配对连结”（pair bond）——即在茫茫人海中选定一个人并将其作为自己的唯一伴侣——究竟是不是适合你的模式？现实中绝大多数人在这种模式上屡遭挫败，但这并不意味着人们应该放弃追求。正如詹姆斯所言，只要它运转良好，带来的回报便无与伦比。即便一段长久关系最终走向终点、各自走向幸福，若能拥有十年或二十年深度的亲密联结、信任与美满的性体验，依然是巨大的成功。在一段健康的一夫一妻制婚姻中，最理想的状态就像吃饱了饭便不再感到饥饿一样，彼此都感到被彻底填满，无需再向外索取。双方共同分享生命空间与旅程，拥有区别于普通友谊的专属浪漫与性联结，并在此基础上获得深度的安全感。如果决定共同踏上这条路，开诚布公地把这些期许表达出来，并共同探讨如何维持这份美好与紧密联结，事情其实远没有想象中那么复杂。 ### [01:20:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4850s) 婚前协议的真相：你选州政府还是选彼此？ 当史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）询问婚前协议是否真有助于婚姻的长久时，詹姆斯坦然给出了肯定的回答。面对巴特利特半开玩笑的质疑——“你这么说是不是因为你是靠起草协议赚钱的离婚律师？”——詹姆斯直言并非如此。事实上，撰写婚前协议是律师事务所利润最低的业务之一，其流程高度标准化、几乎已步入自动化阶段，未来甚至完全可能由人工智能（AI）全盘接管。 詹姆斯反问巴特利特是否应该签婚前协议，并给出了坚定的建议：每个人在踏入婚姻的那一刻起，其实就已经拥有一份婚前协议了——区别仅在于，这份协议要么由你们双方共同制定，要么由所在州的立法机构直接代劳。詹姆斯形象地打了个比方：“你去过机动车辆管理局（DMV）吧？你走进 DMV 时，心里难道会想‘这里的人太棒了，他们应该掌管一切，我们的婚姻规则也该由他们说了算’吗？”政权与立法机构更迭频繁，无论持何种政治立场的人，过去二十年里总有某些时刻对台上掌权者的决策感到难以置信。如果拒绝自主签订婚前协议，无异于在向全世界宣布：在未来的某一天如果婚姻走到尽头，比起从全球八十亿人中精挑细选出来的枕边人，你竟然更信任某地政客替你们制定的财产分割法案。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 婚姻财产规则的决定权路径 accDescr: 对比自主签署婚前协议与默认由国家法律裁决的两种途径。 A["步入婚姻"] --> B{"是否签署婚前协议？"} subgraph 自主掌控 ["自主协商路径"] B -- "是" --> C["夫妻双方自主起草协议"] C --> D["按彼此共识与公平原则处理潜在分歧"] end subgraph 默认裁决 ["被动交权路径"] B -- "否" --> E["采用当地州立法机构的法定规则"] E --> F["由未知法官与繁复法条强制分割资产"] end ``` ### [01:22:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4920s) 害怕谈婚前协议？这恰恰说明你最需要它 许多人在现实中往往不敢向伴侣提及婚前协议，詹姆斯指出，越是恐惧提出这件事的人，恰恰越是最需要它的人。这就像那个经典的禅意比喻：如果你忙得连每天抽出十五分钟冥想的时间都没有，那说明你真正需要的是冥想一整小时。对伴侣开口谈协议感到恐惧，本质上暴露出你害怕与伴侣展开艰难但关键的对话；而一旦走入婚姻，现实生活的风浪瞬息万变，未来需要直面的艰难对话数不胜数。 如果伴侣听到这个提议时当场拒绝，并指责“你根本不信任我、以为我要图谋你的财产、这太不浪漫了”，双方应当深入探讨这背后的心理逻辑。所谓“缺乏信任”完全是对等的——指责对方不信任婚姻会长久，本质上也是指责方不相信彼此在婚姻万一破裂时能公正体面地对待对方。既然你觉得彼此在逆境中无法做到公平相待，那从一开始为何要和这样的人结婚？詹姆斯重申，签署婚前协议从来不是为了防范彼此，而是为了抱团防范政府在婚姻未能白头偕老时用粗暴的一刀切规则强加干涉。 ### [01:24:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5052s) 没有婚前协议的代价：长达七年的诉讼深渊与专家博弈 巴特利特分享了促使他下定决心签婚前协议的契机：除了詹姆斯的长期告诫外，另一次深刻触动是亲眼目睹一位好友经历的离婚惨剧。那位朋友在共进晚餐时满脸写满了深不见底的抑郁。由于没有婚前协议，两批律师团队长达七年展开无休止的厮杀，彻底摧毁了他与前妻之间的一切温情。更残酷的是，由于法律上通常假定高收入一方需承担低收入配偶合理的诉讼律师费，这位朋友不得不自掏腰包垫付前妻的全部法律开销——耗资高达数千万美元。那位朋友苦笑着形容，打官司刚开始时对方律师还蜗居在一间局促的小办公室，这场仗打完后，对方律师赚得的巨额佣金已经足以搬进摩天大楼。 詹姆斯证实，在他的执业生涯中，客户光是支付数百万甚至上千万律师费的情况并不罕见。这种旷日持久的拉锯战往往源于“对立专家”（dueling experts）的博弈： - **评估分歧与专家雇佣**：双方没有共同聘请中立专家来评估当事人的商业资产，而是各自聘请立场偏颇的独立专家。正如当年烟草公司总能花钱找来医生作证“吸烟有益健康”一样，只要出价够高，总能找到具备资质的专家给出符合出资方利益的结论。 - **估值操纵的手段**：想要分割资产的一方极力将企业估值虚抬至天价（例如宣称其价值数十亿美元），而持有资产的一方则有强烈动机雇佣专家将企业价值刻意贬低至冰点。 - **法庭攻击的两大路径**：诉讼律师在法庭上全天候周旋于操纵并阻击这种估值预期：要么弹劾对方引用的基础数据集（指出数据来源错误），要么承认数据集有效但弹劾对方得出的估值结论逻辑不通，或双管齐下。 这种制度性的博弈将原本该平和体面的分手演变成了一场吞噬金钱与心力的巨大黑洞，进一步印证了提前确立明确规则的极端必要性。 ### [01:26:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5161s) 资产估值博弈与每小时一千美元的混乱制造 在探讨离婚诉讼中的财产争夺时，Steven Bartlett 提出了一个极端的商业假设：如果未来的配偶在法庭上坚称他的这档播客节目价值 10 亿美元，借此主张分走 5 亿美元，而法官采信了这一说法，即使他手头根本没有这么多现金，是否也必须设法兑付？James Sexton 证实了这种风险，并指出法院可以通过所谓的“分配性裁决”（distributive award），强制当事人在较长年限内分期支付这笔巨额款项。与此相对，男方的律师团队则会全力论证该资产“一文不值”，并在估值辩论中祭出各种金融折价工具——例如“关键人物折价”（key man discount，即失去核心创始人后业务价值大跌）、“缺乏市场流动性折价”（lack of marketability discount）以及各类负面或有负债折价。 James 直言，这种高度对抗性的估值拉锯战正是他日常工作的核心。婚前协议真正的价值，就是防止双方陷入这种深渊。他的收费标准高达每小时 1,000 美元，客户花这笔巨资聘请他，要么是为了在这类极度混乱的法律泥潭中寻找出路，要么是将制造混乱作为打击对方的诉讼武器，抑或是仅仅通过“制造混乱的威胁”来迫使对手屈服。 - **分配性裁决（Distributive Award）**：即便当事人手头缺乏流动现金，法院也可裁定以长期分期付款的方式兑付配偶应得的资产份额。 - **资产估值常用的抗辩折价**：包括关键人物折价（Key Man Discount）、流动性折价（Lack of Marketability Discount）以及负面或有风险折价。 - **律师收费标准**：James Sexton 的个人咨询与诉讼代理费率为每小时 1,000 美元。 --- ### [01:27:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5222s) 顶级律师的声誉悖论：为何绝不能故意激化冲突 面对这种高昂的按时计费模式，Steven 敏锐地质疑道：这是否意味着律师在利益上天然倾向于激化矛盾、人为拉长诉讼周期以赚取更多律师费？James 坦然承认，他在早前的谈话中就提到过自己以“操控他人的情绪状态”为生，如果他想把这种能力用作恶念，完全可以刻意让当事人深陷恐惧，误以为全世界都在与自己为敌。然而，真正顶尖的诉讼律师恰恰是靠“避免激化矛盾”来树立行业声誉的。 James 分享了一个正在代理的真实案件：对方的代理律师被他视为纽约市唯一水平高于自己的同行，堪称他心目中的诉讼偶像。当他们两位王牌律师在法庭上针锋相对时，场面堪比“霸王龙之间的生死搏杀”（"like T-Rexes fighting"）。然而，这样一场原本能让双方律所轻松赚取数百万美元诉讼费的大案，他们却计划通过“两通电话”迅速达成和解，最终各自只收取约 10,000 美元的微薄费用。James 强调，顶尖律师的威望正是建立在恪守职业道德、不恶意制造冲突的基础之上；那些热衷于挑动争端、榨取客户血汗钱的同行在业内早已声名狼藉，而在这个圈子里，声誉就是律师的立足之本。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 离婚律师声誉与诉讼策略分化模型 accDescr: 对比顶尖律师以和解树立声誉与劣质律师激化冲突赚取高额费用的两种路径。 subgraph Elite["顶尖律师（声誉导向）"] E1["高超诉讼能力与威慑力"] --> E2["迅速切中核心（如两通电话破冰）"] E2 --> E3["快速达成和解（控制费用在低位）"] E3 --> E4["树立业界威望与长期信任"] end subgraph Exploitative["不良律师（利益驱动）"] X1["利用并操纵当事人恐惧心理"] --> X2["刻意放大与激化夫妻矛盾"] X2 --> X3["旷日持久的拉锯战（赚取百万美元费用）"] X3 --> X4["行业声誉扫地，恶名远扬"] end ``` --- ### [01:29:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5353s) 婚前协议的本质与“同居伴侣赡养费”的终结 为了彻底澄清公众对婚前协议的误解，James 拿出了演播室桌面上的 M&M 巧克力豆作为实物道具展开演示。他首先正本清源地界定了婚前协议的真正含义：婚前协议绝不是在赌这段婚姻会不会破裂，不是对伴侣缺乏信任的背书，更不是在步入婚姻殿堂前算计或坑害对方的工具。婚前协议的实质是一套清晰的“规则集”（rule set），其核心功能在于划分不同的资产层级与类别（tranches）。 随后，Steven 提出了许多长期同居未婚情侣的疑虑：如果不结婚只谈恋爱，交往时间足够长之后，对方是否也能依法分割自己的资产？James 解释道，这在法律上曾经被称为“普通法婚姻”（common law marriage）或“同居伴侣赡养费”（palimony，字面意为为朋友/伴侣支付的赡养费）。然而，目前绝大多数司法管辖区已经彻底废除了这一制度。James 透露，该制度历史上的存在很大程度上是因为过去缺乏婚姻平权；在同性伴侣无法合法缔结婚姻的年代，法院必须通过“准婚姻关系”来提供救济。但随着婚姻平权全面成为法律，任何人只要想结婚都可以依法登记，法院便不再认可模糊的准婚姻关系——要么依法结婚，要么没有结婚。在没有婚姻关系的恋爱状态下，双方完全处于“产权名义系统”（title system）之下，你的就是你的，她的就是她的，根本不存在法定的共同体。 - **婚前协议的定义**：既非对离婚几率的押注，亦非对彼此信任的质疑，而是一套提前确立资产所有权划分规则的机制。 - **同居伴侣赡养费（Palimony）的失效**：婚姻平权普及后，司法体系确立了清晰的二元划分；未婚同居者受产权名义系统保护，互不承担法定财产分割与赡养义务。 --- ### [01:31:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5473s) M&M豆实验与“你、我、我们”的三层资产模型 James 抓起桌上的 M&M 豆，生动形象地构建起婚姻财产的运作模型：在婚姻中，存在三个独立的概念——“你”（You）、“我”（Me）以及“我们”（We）。他将一部分代表男方资产的巧克力豆留在一旁，这部分被称为“单独财产”（separate property）；而在加利福尼亚州等法域，婚后获得的财产则被称为“共同财产”（community property）。随后，他代表女方放入了另一部分巧克力豆。新婚之初，哪些豆子属于谁、哪些属于共同池，界限十分清晰。 然而随着岁月推移，彼此的财产不可避免地会交织融合，这在法律上被称为“财产混同”（co-mingling）。James 指出，婚前协议的最大魔力在于它能让复杂的财务状况保持最纯粹的极简状态：只要确立了“你的、我的、我们的”这三个清晰的篮子，产权界限就不会因为生活交融而变得模糊。婚前协议明确规定： 1. 登记在个人名下的资产或负债，全归个人所有； 2. 登记在配偶名下的资产或负债，全归配偶所有； 3. 登记在双方共同名下的资产或负债，则按 50/50 或双方书面商定的比例分割。 在拥有婚前协议的前提下，夫妻双方依然可以充满爱意且自主地为共同生活投入。例如男方获得了一笔丰厚的年终奖，他可以说：“宝贝，我刚拿到奖金，我把大部分放进‘我们’的共同账户，自己留一点点。”这种投入完全是主观自愿且边界分明的，绝不会导致个人特有财产在法律上被全盘吞没。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 婚前协议下的“三篮子”资产管理模型 accDescr: 展示婚前协议如何将个人资产、配偶资产与夫妻共同资产划分为三个独立的界限明确的类别。 subgraph Yours["【你的】（单独财产/负债）"] Y1["配偶婚前资产"] Y2["配偶名下独立账户/资产"] end subgraph Mine["【我的】（单独财产/负债）"] M1["个人婚前资产"] M2["个人名下独立账户/资产"] end subgraph Ours["【我们的】（共同财产池）"] O1["自愿注资的联名账户"] O2["共同购置的房产/资产"] O3["按 50/50 或书面协议分割"] end Mine -.->|"自愿投入奖金/积蓄"| Ours Yours -.->|"自愿投入资金"| Ours ``` --- ### [01:33:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5624s) 七年之痒与资产大混同：没有婚前协议的灾难后果 紧接着，James 揭示了如果不签署婚前协议，现实生活会演变成怎样的法律噩梦。他特别提到在加利福尼亚州生活满七年，或者在纽约州发生任何程度的财产混同之后，法定规则将发生根本性剧变：James 抓起代表个人婚前所有物、原本单独存放的两堆 M&M 豆，毫无保留地全部倒进了“我们”的大池子里，并用手彻底搅乱。 没有婚前协议的庇护，曾经清清楚楚的个人特有财产会瞬间彻底沦为共同财产。此时，池子里的每一粒豆子都必须被迫经历严苛而痛苦的司法三步曲：“识别”（identification）、“估值”（valuation）与“分割”（division）。Steven 随即指出，这其中的资产估值本身就充满了主观争议。James 顺着这个比喻生动剖析道：眼前的这堆巧克力豆里，有些已经碎裂，有些完好无损；律师们将在法庭上无休止地争吵——这些豆子是在婚姻存续期间被压碎的，还是结婚前就坏了？到底是你压碎的，还是她压碎的？哪些豆子现在的单价更高？最初结婚时它们的价值是否等同？ 面对这一团混乱，James 向 Steven 发出挑战：“现在，请把你最初拥有的个人财产从这个池子里挑出来，你需要耗费多长时间？”答案是显而易见的：根本不可能。一旦当事人不慎跌入法定共同财产体系的黑洞，原本简单的生活就会演变成一笔无法厘清的糊涂账。James 感叹，作为离婚律师，他正是靠着帮客户在这类混乱泥潭中抽丝剥茧来过上极其优渥的生活；而夫妻双方本只需要在婚前达成一套共识——明确界定好“你的、我的、我们的”，就可以用极低的成本和绝对的自主权，彻底免除未来无休止的毁灭性诉讼。 ### [01:35:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5730s) “七年之痒”背后的财产混同与婚前协议博弈 对话探讨了若没有婚前协议（Prenup），财务动机驱动的婚姻可能产生算计。主持人设想：如果一个人出于经济利益与一位亿万富翁结婚，最符合其利益的策略或许是极力避免签署婚前协议；因为在法定规则下，大约结婚满 7 年，婚前与婚后财产往往会深度混同成为“夫妻共同财产”（Community Property）。这意味着只要熬过 7 年再提离婚，就可能直接分走数亿美元。 James Sexton 确认了这种情况的真实存在，但他紧接着反转了这个逻辑：如果这段婚姻已经维系了 6 年半，而且一切看起来还过得去，那位身家数十亿的伴侣既然能赚取巨额财富就绝不是傻子，他会愿意冒这个险吗？这就解释了为何许多成功人士在婚姻进入第 6 年到 6 年半时会出现明显的“离婚峰值”（Spike）。这与许多人在婚前协议中加入“日落条款”（Sunset Clause）如出一辙——有些人自以为聪明地设定“婚前协议在结婚 10 年后自动失效”，结果就像《碟中谍》（Mission: Impossible）里的情报自毁一样，直接导致双方在第 9 年半时陷入极度尴尬与猜忌的心理审查：蜜月期早已结束，家里或许还有一两个孩子，此时有钱的一方不得不被迫拷问自己：“难道我要冒着把我婚前拥有的整整一半资产全部分割出去的风险，继续这场赌博吗？现在的日子真的好到值得我下这个赌注吗？” - **法定年限的临界点**：James Sexton 透露，常有当事人在咨询时直言“我打算再等 6 个月再提离婚”，因为届时结婚将满 20 年，法定的配偶赡养费（Alimony）计算公式会直接跃升至更高档位。 - **高速公路限速比喻**：政府裁定规则时设定的门槛本质上是生硬的人为数字。就像路边的限速牌写着 55 英里/小时，开 56 英里就算违法，开 76 英里是更重的罪，开 106 英里就成了重罪（Felony）；55 英里与 56 英里并无本质差异，但法律必须定一个数字。婚前协议的核心拷问在于：你真的愿意完全信任政府替你定下的这些生硬数字，还是更信任彼此？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 婚姻时间节点与法定财产风险流程 accDescr: 展示婚姻随着时间推进，在法定默认规则与日落条款下触发的财产分割临界点与信任危机 subgraph 法定默认规则 A["结婚开始"] --> B["结婚 6.5 年: 富豪伴侣面临财产混同倒计时审查"] B --> C["结婚 7 年: 财产深度混同形成共同财产，面临 50% 资产分割风险"] C --> D["结婚 20 年: 赡养费计算档位大幅跃升"] end subgraph 日落条款隐患 E["签署含 10 年日落条款协议"] --> F["结婚 9.5 年: 触发自毁倒计时审查"] F --> G["严峻灵魂拷问: 是否值得拿出一半资产去赌未来？"] end ``` --- ### [01:38:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5928s) 核心诉求是安全感：定制“你的、我的、我们的”规则 在从全球 80 亿人中选出的伴侣之间，James Sexton 认为两人完全有能力建立一套清晰简明、专属于彼此的规则——“登记在我名下的归我，登记在你名下的归你，登记在共同名下的归我们”。有了这套框架，双方随时可以坦诚沟通“为什么要放在联名账户”或“为什么存入个人账户”，从而掌控各自的财务边界。 婚姻中双方的核心心理诉求始终是“感到安全”（To feel safe）。James Sexton 接触过大量亲密伴侣虐待、家庭暴力以及强迫控制（Coercive control）的受害者，他强调：**如果一个人感觉不到安全，就绝不可能感受到爱**。这种不安全感可能来源于身体、情感或财务层面。在“俊男靓女配富豪”的传统组合中，双方的安全感诉求截然不同却同样合理： - **财富较少的一方**：需要确信自己即使不专注于赚钱、投身于照顾家庭或其他非营利性事务，未来的生活与安全依然有坚实兜底。 - **财富较多的一方**：希望确信伴侣爱的是自己独特的灵魂，而非仅仅贪图金钱，确信自己辛辛苦苦积累的财富不会在日后被无情卷走。 讨论婚前协议的最佳时机是在两人深陷爱河、单膝跪地求婚、对未来充满极大乐观与憧憬的起点，而不是在关系破裂、反目成仇的终点。James 幽默地抓起桌上的 M&M's 巧克力豆比喻道，金钱归根结底只是大家赋予了价值的纸片或数字，就像这些巧克力豆一样，“甚至这巧克力豆嚼起来还甜一点，嚼钞票可没用”。 --- ### [01:42:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6140s) 现实坦白与定制化保障：有孩子与无孩子的动态设计 主持人分享了自己与未婚妻就婚前协议交流的亲身经历。他的伴侣对签署婚前协议非常支持，因为她自己也是创业者，同样渴望保护个人资产与倾注心血打造的事业。同时主持人坦承，自己目前的收入显著高于女方，如果未来两人组建大家庭、生育四五个孩子，女方必然要在家庭上倾注大量精力，他理应承担更多的财务责任以确保伴侣拥有充分的安全感与生活保障。 James Sexton 对主持人的务实态度高度赞赏，指出这正是心智成熟、通情达理的伴侣该有的对话方式。伴侣的人生追求可能不在于成为呼风唤雨的商业 CEO，而在于通过帮助他人让世界变得更美好，这种利他品质本身也是彼此相爱的关键特质。婚前协议的巨大优势在于它的高度灵活性，完全可以设计动态梯级条款： - **未生育子女场景**：维持相对独立的财产归属，各自保护创业果实与既有财富。 - **育有子女场景**：自动触发针对育儿牺牲与家庭贡献的补偿和保障机制。 这种量身定制的协议能化解未来的不确定性，在保护双方合法权益的同时，让两颗心真正踏实下来。 ### [01:43:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6223s) 什么是“宠物婚前协议”（Petnup）及其法律现实 当主持人问及宠物以及所谓的“宠物婚前协议”（Petnup）时，詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）证实这确实是当下法律实践中越来越常见的真实需求。他甚至创建了一个名为 `trustedpetnup.com` 的网站，该网站完全免费，采用“随心随愿支付”（pay-as-you-wish）模式，收到的所有捐赠 100% 都会直接转给 501(c)(3) 非营利动物收容所。詹姆斯解释说，现代法律体系中正在出现大量相当于“伴侣动物抚养权纠纷”的诉讼。无论是狗、猫还是鸟，人们对宠物都投入了极其深厚的情感，然而长期以来，法律一直将宠物视为“动产”（Chattel，即财产）。在过去的传统法律观念中，如果你杀死了别人的狗，在法律上你仅仅只需要赔偿对方那只狗的“重置价值”（replacement value）。 在现实婚姻和同居关系中，最常见的法律纠纷莫过于双方共同购买了一只宠物，但从未明确到底归谁所有；或者在恋爱阶段，宠物原本住在其中一方的公寓里，随后两人同居合并居所，共同生活了 5 到 10 年。此时双方都对宠物产生了极深的情感依恋，其性质非常类似于继父母与继子女的关系——“虽然它身上没有流着我的血，但我长期参与它的照料，对它而言我意义非凡”。塞克斯顿回忆起纽约县的一起真实案件：夫妻双方在离婚时为了争夺一条狗相持不下、互不相让，法官最终给出了极具所罗门式裁决意味的判决：“好，我命令将这条狗卖掉，拍卖所得金额由两人平分。”受到震慑的双方随即走出法庭，在走廊里迅速自行协商并敲定了一份详细的宠物探视时间表。 塞克斯顿强调，宠物协议的核心逻辑与婚前协议如出一辙——必须“防患于未然，提前立规”。即便双方并不打算结婚，只要处于恋爱或同居阶段，就应该签署一份明确的契约。因为宠物就如同孩子一样，从未要求人类去恋爱，也从未要求主人最终走向分手，“没有任何一对夫妻的分手是因为那只猫或那只狗引起的”。提前制定规则能让双方在关系破裂时不至于拿动物泄愤或陷入恶性争夺。 - **医疗决策权**：约定在涉及重大健康与医疗决策时由双方共同协商，并严格以兽医的专业意见为指导。 - **优先领养权**：若未来任何一方因故无法继续饲养而打算将动物送交领养，另一方自动享有优先领养权。 - **善终与告别权益**：当面临兽医建议实施安乐死的关头，双方均有权到场陪伴做最后告别；对骨灰安置、安葬地点达成共识，或各保留一半骨灰。 - **探视日程表（Visitation Schedule）**：在分居或关系解除后，为宠物制定明确的探访与陪伴日程。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 伴侣动物协议核心流程 accDescr: 伴侣从共同收养宠物到提前制定规则再到应对分手争议的协议处理流程。 subgraph 入养与确权 A["共同收养/购置宠物"] --> B["订立宠物协议<br/>(Petnup)"] end subgraph 预设规则框架 B --> C["探视日程安排"] B --> D["重大医疗与兽医指导"] B --> E["优先领养与安乐死/后事约定"] end subgraph 风险化解 C --> F["避免将宠物降格为拍卖动产"] D --> F E --> F F --> G["理性善后，保障动物福利"] end ``` --- ### [01:47:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6433s) 离婚率统计的盲区与婚姻数据的真实面貌 关于离婚率是否正在上升的疑问，塞克斯顿指出，从最新数据来看，离婚率确实在缓慢回升。此前离婚率经历了一段下降期，特别是在疫情封控期间降到了较低水平，但这在很大程度上只是因为法院系统关闭、立案途径受阻所致。更关键的是，大众所看到的官方离婚率统计存在巨大的现实偏差：官方数据纯粹是依据向州政府提交的“婚姻解除证明”（Certificate of Dissolution of Marriage）终审文件计算的，它只记录了那些经历彻底灾难性破裂且正式办结法律手续的婚姻。 现实中存在大量未被统计的情况。有些人“出门去买个牛奶就再也没有回来”，或者长期处于事实分居状态，搬去不同地方生活却从未在法律层面上办理离婚手续；还有大量夫妻在同一屋檐下悄无声息地忍受痛苦、彼此折磨。这部分人完全被排斥在官方统计数据之外。随着疫情后法院系统重新开放，离婚立案量经历了一轮报复性激增，随后保持稳定回升。与此同时，结婚率却在显著下降，初婚的平均年龄也在不断推后。 --- ### [01:48:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6524s) “银发离婚”浪潮与代际认知转变 对于千禧一代（Millennials）与 Z 世代（Gen Z），数据显示其离婚率大幅走低，年轻人更倾向于推迟结婚、婚前同居、择偶更为严谨审慎，婚姻结构看似更稳定。然而，50 岁以上群体的“银发离婚”（Gray Divorce）现象却自 1990 年以来翻了一倍，65 岁以上人群的离婚率更是激增了整整三倍。塞克斯顿指出，这是当代离婚律师群体最为关注的焦点之一。现代医学的发展让高龄人群的生活质量和状态发生了根本改变，比如过去 20 年间勃起功能障碍（ED）药物的普及与激素替代疗法（HRT），使得七八十岁的老人依然能够维持活跃的性生活与浪漫追求。许多步入晚年的人会意识到：“我还有 10 年、20 年高质量的寿命，我没有必要继续困死在一段痛苦的婚姻里”，从而毅然选择分开。 塞克斯顿与主持人进一步探讨了驱动这一趋势的深层社会动因： - **女性经济独立**：婴儿潮一代及后来的女性普遍拥有属于自己的职业生涯和独立的退休积蓄，具备独立支撑晚年生活的能力，不再因经济依赖而被迫隐忍。 - **绝经期与人生阶段觉醒**：更年期健康专家的临床反馈显示，许多女性在这一生命关口重新审视自我，主动选择结束不幸福的伴侣关系。 - **离婚社会污名化的消解**：离婚不再被公众视作道德层面的灾难性失败或人生污点，而被看作“一段人生篇章的落幕，与崭新篇章的开端”。塞克斯顿表示，当两个人已经竭尽全力去尝试修复却依然无果，意识到“从此幸福快乐的生活（happily ever after）意味着各自独立地去追求幸福”，这种观念转变不仅不是坏事，反而是理性的体现。 - **年轻一代预期的务实化**：千禧一代之所以表现出更低的早期破裂率，除了结婚时间尚短之外，一个核心原因在于他们带着更为务实的预期步入婚姻。他们不再天真地期待配偶必须成为自己的“全能救世主（everything）”，而是清醒地认识到自己作为普通人类尚未完全活明白，对方同样只是一个不完美的普通人。 --- ### [01:51:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6697s) 畅销书《如何维持爱情》背后的洞察 主持人转向塞克斯顿所著的书籍，询问在《如何不搞砸你的婚姻：阅人无数的离婚律师直言不讳》（*How Not to F*ck Up Your Marriage*）与《如何维持爱情》（*How to Stay in Love*）两部作品中哪一本更受欢迎。塞克斯顿表示，《如何维持爱情》出版时间更长，目前已经进入第四次印刷，在市场上引发了极其广泛而持久的共鸣。这不仅因为它是塞克斯顿撰写的第一部作品，更在于它直接从一名见惯了婚姻分崩离析的专职离婚律师的独特反向视角，剥丝抽茧地剖析了让爱意常青的底层真相。 ### [01:52:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6723s) 修车工的视角：为何要向离婚律师学习维持婚姻 在探讨如何维系亲密关系时，詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）用了一个极为贴切的汽车比喻：如果你想知道如何让车况长久保持良好，你绝不该去问新车经销商，而应该去请教修车工。新车销售员眼里看到的永远是刚出厂、完美无瑕的新车，对机件未来的磨损与崩溃毫无概念；而修理工每天都在拆解残骸，深谙所有“可预测的故障点”究竟会在何处爆发。正因如此，一位见惯了婚姻分崩离析的顶尖离婚律师，反而最懂得一段关系是如何一步步走向破裂的。当主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及，在守护“爱情”这一珍贵而脆弱的事物时，还有哪些至关重要却尚未探讨的话题时，塞克斯顿以朋友的身份，向刚刚订婚的斯蒂芬提出了两个关于婚姻最普遍却最具杀伤力的认知陷阱。 ### [01:52:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6771s) 踏入婚姻时两个看似矛盾的危险假设 塞克斯顿指出，许多夫妻走进他的办公室办理离婚，根源都在于他们在踏入婚姻时，往往抱持着两个表面相互对立、实则同样致命的假设： 第一个假设是**“以为婚姻会改变对方”**。人们常寄希望于那一纸婚书能够奇迹般地修正伴侣身上的缺点或生活习惯，比如暗自期许“斯蒂芬现在是个工作狂、满世界拼命奔波，但结婚后他就会收心多待在家里”，或是女方原本容易缺乏安全感、担忧男方出差在外面临诱惑，便以为“只要领了证，有了坚定的法律承诺，她就不会再疑神疑鬼了”。塞克斯顿警告称，期待用婚姻去重塑伴侣，是极其危险的妄念。 与之针锋相对的第二个假设则是**“以为结婚后一切都不会改变”**。处于热恋期的男女往往沉醉于眼前的甜蜜，感叹“她是如此美好，我好爱她激发出的那个更好的自己”，并理所当然地以为婚姻是一堵能够抵御外部风雨的坚固高墙，能将这份温暖完美封存，从此静止不变。然而，人会变老，心境、压力与生活轨迹也必然演变。塞克斯顿强调，这两种假设的唯一解法就是**毫无保留、不带评判地持续沟通**。当发现彼此发生变化时，既不要预设变化是坏事，也不要盲目乐观，而是平和地摊开在桌面上讨论：“你看，以前的我们和现在的我们有些不一样了，为什么会这样？这种改变好吗？彼此有什么需要调整的？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 婚姻中两个看似矛盾的危险假设与解法 accDescr: 展示婚姻中两极化的错误预期以及化解这些假象的核心沟通机制 subgraph Traps["踏入婚姻的致命假设"] A["假设一：婚姻会改变对方<br/>（试图用承诺修正伴侣的习性与缺点）"] B["假设二：结婚后永远不变<br/>（以为一纸婚书能将热恋期完美封存）"] end subgraph Remedy["现实共存与化解之道"] C["直面变化的不可避免性"] D["持续坦诚沟通<br/>（不带怨怼与评判，定期校准两人的状态）"] end Traps --> C C --> D ``` - **关于婚姻终局的残酷真相**：塞克斯顿重申，每段婚姻注定都会走向终结，最好的结局莫过于“以死亡划上句点”。而人生最崇高的馈赠，就是在生命走到尽头时，你依然能注视着对方坦然说道：“她帮我成为了最真实的自己，而且她依然是我全世界最喜欢的人。” ### [01:56:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=6987s) 成为最真实的自己：彼此托举的共生关系 针对“帮助伴侣成为最真实版本”这一观点，斯蒂芬追问为何“真实性”（authenticity）在亲密关系中拥有如此核心的分量。塞克斯顿阐释道，爱的本质绝不是把伴侣塑造成“你心目中期望的模样”，也不是为了迎合对方的设想而扭曲自己。他援引了黎巴嫩诗人哈利勒·纪伯伦（Kahlil Gibran）在名作《先知》（*The Prophet*）中关于孩子的经典隐喻：孩子如同活生生的箭矢，为人父母虽是弓箭手，但弓箭射出之后，风向以及诸多不可控的外部力量都会左右它的轨迹；神所爱的是那双稳定的手，以及笔直飞行的箭。 在最健康的共生关系中，双方应当形成一种互为奉献的默契：你珍视她甚至胜过珍视自己，她珍视你甚至胜过珍视她自己。但这并非要剥夺对方的自我，而是彼此充当对方的眼睛——“由于每个人都有自己的盲区，我看得到你的盲区，你看得到我的盲区，因此我的使命是倾尽全力协助你成为最真实的你”。当斯蒂芬由衷感叹婚姻的责任让人心生敬畏、生怕自己搞砸时，塞克斯顿安慰道，感到害怕恰恰是勇敢的前提；如果一件事情毫无恐惧，那直面它便算不上勇敢。正视这份敬畏，意味着你真正将其视为严肃的事业，并会竭尽全力去经营。 ### [01:59:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=7184s) 终局问答：十年前病逝母亲的无言梦境 依照节目的收尾惯例，上一位嘉宾留下了一个深刻的问题：“在过去一年里，你做过最意味深长的梦是什么？它如何改变了你的行为？” 听到这个问题，平日里快节奏、言辞犀利的塞克斯顿深深叹了一口气，情绪瞬间变得异常动容，几度哽咽停顿。他坦露自己梦见了十年前因癌症病逝的母亲。母亲生前与他性格极其相似，充满活力、语速飞快，总是滔滔不绝甚至习惯抢话，同时情感极其丰沛，听到美妙的音乐就会感动得热泪盈眶。由于母亲走得匆忙，两人之间留下了太多未能说出口的话，他内心始终渴望能当面向母亲为当年的不懂事道歉，也渴望能更深地去理解她。 然而，在那场梦境里，素来喧闹的母亲却极其罕见地全程一言不发。梦中的塞克斯顿如同往常一样不断对着母亲倾诉，而母亲只是静静地坐在他身边，温柔地轻轻拍着他的腿。塞克斯顿在平静与温暖中醒来，这场梦彻底震颤了他的心灵：他突然顿悟，过去他们母子之间太多的言语与争辩，反而成了阻隔彼此真心的屏障；在最深沉的爱意面前，真正重要的从来不是喋喋不休的说服，而是“我就静静陪在你身边”。这一梦境改变了他对待亲人的方式，尽管作为一名职业律师很难克制说话的冲动，但他正努力学会放慢语速，在两个儿子和挚爱的人身旁学会享受无声的陪伴。 ### [02:03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=7385s) 停下脚步单纯陪伴：殊途同归的“爱”与成就迷局 在分享完关于梦境的感悟后，詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）深有触触动地总结道，那个梦境虽然简单，却异常深刻——它彻底改变了他对待人际关系的方式。他意识到，人并不需要永远马不停蹄地“做些什么”，有时候，最美好的事情莫过于停下脚步，仅仅是安安静静地与另一个人相伴相守。讲到动情之处，詹姆斯再次湿了眼眶，忍不住揉着眼睛半开玩笑地对史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）说：“伙计，你又把我给弄哭了，真是要了我的命。” 史蒂文由衷感叹道：“归根结底，世间的一切最终都会回到‘爱’上面，不是吗？所有道路都通向爱。”詹姆斯对此深表赞同，感叹人类社会明明给爱附加了无数层繁复的修饰与枷锁，但剥开外壳，核心却简单至极。史蒂文分享了自己前一周在中东某地演讲时的经历：当时台下有人提问“全人类最渴望的究竟是什么？”史蒂文不假思索地回答“是爱”。然而，所有人在追求爱的路径上却陷入了巨大的认知困惑——许多人误以为只有获得显赫的成就，比如“打造出全网第一的播客节目”，才意味着自己拥有了被爱的资格。 ### [02:04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=7440s) 人生下半场的终极顿悟：找回本真自我与爱的纯粹 接续史蒂文的观点，詹姆斯一针见血地指出，现代人最大的通病就是将“世俗成就”与“值得被爱”错误地绑定在一起。若非为了证明自己值得被爱，人们追逐那些外在名利的意义究竟何在？“一个人究竟能拥有多少辆超级跑车？它们到底能带给你多少真正的快乐？无论买多少辆，你一次也只能开一辆出门而已。”他强调，核心的诉求永远是：确认自己是值得被爱的，因接纳真实的自我而感到自豪，并以此确信自己的价值。 詹姆斯动情地分享了步入“中晚年（late middle age）”带给他的两大人间清醒式的顿悟： 1. **世上最艰难的事情，莫过于成为你自己——那个真实无伪的本真自我。** 2. **每个人一生所追求的，无非就是去被爱，以及确信自己配得上这份爱。** 詹姆斯直言，行至人生尽头，除了一件事之外，你所积累的所有物质财富和功名利禄最终都会化为“一堆巨大的虚无”（a great pile of nothing）。唯独真正重要的，就只有那些你深爱过的人、深爱过你的人，以及你们彼此共同创造的回忆与经历。“除此以外，其余一切皆是噪音（Everything else is noise）。”史蒂文由衷表达了感谢，两人在温暖与真挚的气氛中告别。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 人生追求与爱的本质逻辑图 accDescr: 展示从追逐外在成就的认知误区，转变为理解爱与生命终极意义的过程 subgraph 认知误区["追逐外在的迷局"] A["世俗成就与物质积累<br/>（超级跑车、第一播客、社会地位）"] --> B["错误假设：<br/>'只有成功才配被爱'"] end subgraph 终极顿悟["中晚年的人生真谛"] C["成为真实的自我<br/>（Authentic Self）"] D["纯粹的情感联结<br/>（去爱与被爱）"] end B -.->|反思与觉醒| C C --> D D --> E["生命的核心资产：<br/>爱过的人 + 爱你的人 + 共同经历"] A -.->|终局透视| F["虚无与噪音<br/>（A great pile of nothing）"] ``` - **物欲的边际效用**：无论一个人多么富有，豪车再多一次也只能驾驶一辆，物质无法填补内心对爱与价值感的匮乏。 - **人生的终极清算**：在剥离了所有外在名利的光环后，真正能沉淀为生命价值的，仅有爱过的人、爱自己的人，以及与他们共同度过的生命体验。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=0s) 去他的，戴夫难道真的连三件喜欢你的事情都说不出来吗？这要求真的很过分吗？我完全不信这种鬼话。 — James Sexton > [02:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=165s) 我们比以往任何时候都更加饥肠辘辘，却彻底失去了做饭的技能。 — James Sexton > [09:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=575s) 自律是用你‘当下想要的’去换取你‘最想要的’。 — James Sexton > [18:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1114s) 浪漫喜剧（Rom-com）或爱情电影，本质上就是情感层面的色情片。 — James Sexton > [21:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1302s) 我们偏离了主线（We lost the plot）。 — James Sexton > [28:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=1719s) 我就活在这个躯壳里面，对自己也才掌握七成；凭什么仅仅因为我们睡在同一张床上、交换了体液，我就必须百分之百懂你、预判你的一切？ — James Sexton > [43:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=2600s) 我们深信自己根本不配被爱（not worthy of love）。 — James Sexton > [01:14:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4448s) 成瘾，就是你为了逃避‘如果什么都不做就原本会产生的那种感觉’所做出的任何事情。 — Dave Klugman > [01:20:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=4850s) 你去过机动车辆管理局（DMV）吧？你走进 DMV 时，心里难道会想‘这里的人太棒了，他们应该掌管一切，我们的婚姻规则也该由他们说了算’吗？ — James Sexton > [01:38:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=5928s) 如果一个人感觉不到安全，就绝不可能感受到爱。 — James Sexton > [02:04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=7440s) 世上最艰难的事情，莫过于成为你自己——那个真实无伪的本真自我。 — James Sexton > [02:04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0&t=7440s) 除此以外，其余一切皆是噪音（Everything else is noise）。 — James Sexton ## Mentioned James Sexton, Steven Bartlett, How to Stay in Love, If You're in My Office, It's Already Too Late, How Not to F*ck Up Your Marriage, Charles Duhigg, Stephen Covey, Andrew Huberman, Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Stan, Pipedrive, Apple Card, Adult Children of Alcoholics, Yo-Yo Ma, Love on the Spectrum, Nine Inch Nails, Clint Eastwood, Richard Simmons, Dave Klugman, Mr. Rogers, trustedpetnup.com, Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet ## Video description Do you want to know why your relationship keeps failing? Divorce Lawyer James Sexton discusses relationship advice, the impact of AI on love, communication skills, why prenups are rising, and why people stay in toxic cycles! James Sexton is America's top divorce lawyer with over 2 decades of experience in divorce and family law. He is the founder of a private law firm and bestselling author of books such as, 'How to Stay in Love' and 'If You're in My Office, It's Already Too Late'. He explains: ▪️The "yours, mine, ours" framework for a fair prenuptial agreement ▪️How AI companions and algorithms are quietly destroying human intimacy ▪️Why social media has become the ultimate infidelity-generating machine ▪️The 1 communication exercise involving a monk that saves marriages ▪️The "seven-year spike" that triggers automatic asset sharing 00:00 Intro 03:01 How to Avoid Ending Up in Divorce 06:42 When to Give a Relationship a Second Chance And When to Walk Away 11:04 Why Prioritizing Your Partner Changes Everything 25:50 What Really Happens When Love Starts to Fade 31:01 What to Do When the Relationship Is Falling Apart 41:21 The One Ritual Every Couple Needs to Strengthen Their Bond 50:05 How Your Childhood Shapes Your Relationships Today 52:01 Why So Many Relationships End and How to Prevent It 58:44 Can Independent People Truly Find Lasting Love? 1:09:08 Are You Prioritizing the Wrong Things in Your Relationship? 1:14:08 How Addiction Numbs Us from Real Connection 1:15:14 Why You Shouldn’t Give Up on Love Even Now 1:20:50 Can Prenups Actually Make Marriages Last? 1:22:00 I'm Scared to Ask for a Prenup, Here’s What to Do 1:24:12 Wild Divorce Stories You Have to Hear to Believe 1:29:51 Why a Prenup Might Be the Best Thing for Your Marriage 1:44:14 Should You Get a Prenup for Your Pets? 1:53:11 The Most Common Mistake People Make After Saying "I Do" 1:56:57 Why Being Authentic Is the Key to a Lasting Relationship Enjoyed the episode? Share this link and earn points for every referral - redeem them for exclusive prizes: https://doac-perks.com Follow James: Instagram - https://linkly.link/2a6EF X - https://linkly.link/2a6EH YouTube - https://linkly.link/2a6EZ Website - https://linkly.link/2a6EL You can purchase James’ book, ‘How Not to F*ck Up Your Marriage: Straight talk from a divorce lawyer who’s seen it all’, here: https://linkly.link/2a6EQ The Diary Of A CEO: ◼️Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼️Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ◼️The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ◼️The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb ◼️Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ◼️Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Stan: Join Stan’s Dare to Post 30-day Challenge. Post one video per day for 30 days. Finish the challenge and split $100,000. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED. For Official Rules, visit https://DaretoDream.stan.store Pipedrive - https://pipedrive.com/CEO Apple Card - https://Apple.co/get-daily-cash Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City Branch. Offer may not be available everywhere. Terms and limitations apply. [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvy5mcLiWW0)

[0:00] James Sexton: 去他的，戴夫难道真的连三件喜欢你的事情都说不出来吗？这要求真的很过分吗？我完全不信这种鬼话。 [2:45] James Sexton: 我们比以往任何时候都更加饥肠辘辘，却彻底失去了做饭的技能。 [9:35] James Sexton: 自律是用你‘当下想要的’去换取你‘最想要的’。 [18:34] James Sexton: 浪漫喜剧（Rom-com）或爱情电影，本质上就是情感层面的色情片。 [21:42] James Sexton: 我们偏离了主线（We lost the plot）。 [28:39] James Sexton: 我就活在这个躯壳里面，对自己也才掌握七成；凭什么仅仅因为我们睡在同一张床上、交换了体液，我就必须百分之百懂你、预判你的一切？ [43:20] James Sexton: 我们深信自己根本不配被爱（not worthy of love）。 [74:08] Dave Klugman: 成瘾，就是你为了逃避‘如果什么都不做就原本会产生的那种感觉’所做出的任何事情。 [80:50] James Sexton: 你去过机动车辆管理局（DMV）吧？你走进 DMV 时，心里难道会想‘这里的人太棒了，他们应该掌管一切，我们的婚姻规则也该由他们说了算’吗？ [98:48] James Sexton: 如果一个人感觉不到安全，就绝不可能感受到爱。 [124:00] James Sexton: 世上最艰难的事情，莫过于成为你自己——那个真实无伪的本真自我。 [124:00] James Sexton: 除此以外，其余一切皆是噪音（Everything else is noise）。

[66:04] James Sexton: We're living our gag reel and watching everyone's greatest hits. [66:04] James Sexton: If we just stop bullshitting each other for five minutes and instead go, 'You know, I'm doing great on this, but like this I feel like I'm a train wreck on.' [70:46] James Sexton: Control yourself. Calm down and control yourself. [70:46] James Sexton: Maybe we just need more Mr. Rogers and less, you know, intense self-help. [74:08] James Sexton: Work is my favorite narcotic. [75:14] James Sexton: When I'm full, I'm not hungry. I don't need more to eat. Like when I'm satisfied, I don't need more. [100:45] James Sexton: The worst time to have that conversation is when you're breaking up. Have it when you're first having that abundance of optimism and connection to each other. [113:11] James Sexton: People get divorced the same way they go bankrupt, very slowly and then all at once. [123:29] James Sexton: great pile of nothing

[0:00] If you had to give one relationship [0:02] ritual to stay in love, what would that [0:04] be? Once a week, tell your [music] [0:05] partner three things that you love about [0:07] them and three things they could have [0:08] done better. [0:09] >> But some people thinking, well, and if I [0:11] told Dave that we're going to start [0:12] writing these notes to each other, he's [0:13] going to cringe [music] and not going to [0:14] do it. [ __ ] Honestly, Dave can't [0:16] name three things he likes about you. [0:18] Really, Dave? Is that a big ask? I [0:20] absolutely call bull on that. The bigger [0:23] question is what's uncomfortable about [0:24] that for you? And look, I'm not a [0:26] therapist. I'm a divorce lawyer. I [0:28] represent some of the most high [0:30] achieving minds, athletes, [0:31] entrepreneurs, and they're just as bad [0:33] at this as anybody because there's a [0:35] part of us that's afraid to poke at what [0:37] do you love about me? What am I getting [0:40] wrong? And it's not just romantic [0:42] relationships. Like, [0:45] my mom died 10 years ago after a long [0:47] battle with cancer. [0:49] There was a lot between us that needed [0:52] to be said and [music] wasn't said. [0:56] And there's a part of me that wishes she [0:58] was here so that I could have apologized [1:02] [music] for some things I got wrong. But [1:04] we don't do that because people just [1:07] don't want temporary discomfort. [music] [1:09] And so I think there's something deeply [1:11] courageous about love, about commitment, [1:14] about saying I'm going to give them the [1:16] opportunity to hurt me. Like it's scary, [1:18] [music] but I'm brave. You know, your [1:20] marriage will end. It ends in death or [1:22] divorce. And for two people at the end [1:24] of their relationship to say, "This [1:26] person helped me become the most [1:27] authentic version of myself." That's the [1:29] greatest gift you could give to another [1:31] human being. And as you can see from [1:32] this photo, I just proposed to my [1:35] fiance. I'd like some advice on how not [1:37] to mess this up. Like if my fiance ends [1:39] up walking into your practice, what is [1:42] the reason she's likely to end up there? [1:43] The number one reason that I'm going to [1:45] have a woman sitting across from me, [1:46] divorcing someone who's a great [1:48] provider, great protector is [1:52] >> that is not obvious to everybody [1:54] >> and it'll keep me in business for the [1:56] rest of my life. [2:00] >> Guys, I've got a quick favor to ask you. [2:02] We're approaching a significant [2:03] subscriber milestone on this show and [2:05] roughly 69% of you that listen and love [2:08] this show haven't yet subscribed for [2:10] whatever reason. If there was ever a [2:11] time for you to do us a favor, if we've [2:13] ever done anything for you, given you [2:15] value in any way, it is simply hitting [2:17] that subscribe button. And it means so [2:19] much to myself, but also to my team, [2:20] because when we hit these milestones, we [2:21] go away as a team and celebrate. And [2:23] it's the thing, the simple, free, easy [2:24] thing you can do to help make this show [2:26] a little bit better every single week. [2:29] So, that's a favor I would ask you. And [2:31] um if you do hit the subscribe button, I [2:33] won't let you down and we'll continue to [2:34] find small ways to make this whole [2:36] production better. Thank you so much for [2:38] being part of this journey. Means the [2:40] world. And uh yeah, let's do this. [2:42] [music] [2:44] [singing] [2:45] James, [2:47] as you can see from this photo, I just [2:50] proposed to my fiance and gladly she [2:52] said yes. So, I've brought you here in [2:55] part because I'd like some advice on how [2:57] not to mess this up because I know from [2:59] speaking to you previously about 50% of [3:02] people that get down on their knee end [3:04] up messing it up in some way. Before we [3:05] get into this though, and before you [3:07] help me figure out how to stay in love [3:08] and not mess it up. [3:09] >> Yeah. [3:10] >> Where do you find us at as it relates to [3:13] love as a society? If you were to zoom [3:15] out and diagnose society's relationship [3:18] with the subject of love and their um [3:21] ability to keep it, find it, and [3:23] understand it, where are we? [3:25] >> I think we we're in this really [3:27] uncomfortable moment as a culture. I [3:29] think we we want more than anything to [3:32] feel real connection. I think we're sick [3:35] of just looking at screens. I think we [3:38] came out of the pandemic with a feeling [3:40] of, okay, I want to be in the world with [3:42] other people and feel the warmth of real [3:44] people. [3:46] And yet, we have an increasingly [3:51] lower number of useful tools in finding [3:55] connection and staying connected, which [3:57] are two totally different skills. And [4:01] yet we're yearning for it more than [4:03] ever. So we're more hungry than we've [4:05] ever been and we have no idea how to [4:08] cook [4:09] >> in your head because you've seen so many [4:11] people go through divorce and [4:13] relationships fail. [4:14] >> There must be a sort of checklist of [4:16] things that I'm likely to mess up. [4:18] >> Yeah. I mean, well, you know, first of [4:20] all, when I when I knew you, you know, [4:21] heard you got engaged, [4:23] >> I was thrilled because I'm always [4:26] cheering for people. I really am. I'm [4:27] always cheering for love. And so I think [4:30] in our prior conversations, you're [4:31] obviously someone who loves very deeply [4:33] and and the fact that you found this [4:36] person, you know, [clears throat] to me [4:38] is the most lovely thing. You know, I I [4:40] think at its core, this is your favorite [4:43] person. I just can't think of anything [4:45] more lovely than that. Like the idea [4:47] that you would look at a person and go, [4:49] "You're my favorite person." And and [4:51] that person would look at you and say, [4:53] "You're my favorite person." And that [4:55] you would know that it's true. like when [4:57] they say it that it's true. Like that [4:59] that feels to me like something worth [5:02] pursuing. That feels like something that [5:03] if I tried to get it and I failed, I'd [5:05] try again because if you could find it, [5:08] it's just about the greatest thing in [5:10] the world. Like the the thought to me [5:12] that, you know, I I I won't get to give [5:14] a toast at your wedding, but I will say [5:16] that if I was going to give the toast, [5:18] it would be that there are two wishes I [5:21] have for you. You know, your marriage [5:23] will end. I mean, I've said it to you [5:25] before in one of our first [5:26] conversations. Every marriage ends. It [5:27] ends in death or divorce. I hope yours [5:29] ends in death. And I hope when it ends [5:32] in death that let's send you off first [5:35] that when you're dying that she will say [5:39] hopefully to you or to those around, [5:43] you helped me become the most authentic [5:45] version of myself and you're still my [5:48] favorite person. [5:50] Because I can't think of a greater [5:52] blessing than that. like for two people [5:54] at the end of their life, at the end of [5:56] their relationship to say, "This person [5:58] helped me become the most authentic [6:00] version of myself and they're still my [6:02] favorite person." That's the greatest [6:04] gift you could give to another human [6:05] being, I think. And I like the idea that [6:10] even in the face of knowing that this is [6:13] risky, this is something that may not [6:16] work, this is something that [6:17] statistically the odds are against, but [6:20] I'm going to give it a shot because, you [6:22] know, there's something it adds to my [6:24] life and there's something I add to her [6:26] life and, you know, we're going to we're [6:28] going to give it a shot. I don't know. I [6:29] found that very beautiful. As a divorce [6:31] lawyer who is also a very big fan of [6:33] love, do you ever find yourself trying [6:35] to get someone not to get a divorce, has [6:38] there ever been an instance where you [6:39] you looked at the situation and thought, [6:41] you know what, they should just get back [6:43] together? Yeah. I what I'll say is my [6:46] first thought is often, [6:49] is this person accurately perceiving the [6:52] situation that they're in? So people [6:53] will come in and they'll say, you know, [6:56] it really people come to me in very [6:57] different situations. So sometimes [6:58] people will come to me and they're [7:00] they're they've been served with divorce [7:02] papers like the marriage is over and now [7:04] it's about okay we have to react [7:06] defensively. So you know when people [7:09] come to my office the situation is often [7:12] so dire and so broken that they're [7:15] coming in to hire me for that specific [7:17] purpose. But I will say without question [7:20] that if I get any sense that this person [7:23] would either a benefit from individual [7:26] therapy that might help them view the [7:28] relationship differently and come to the [7:30] relationship differently. I will not [7:33] hesitate to refer them. And then there [7:35] are people that and it's more common [7:39] than you'd think that something awful [7:42] has happened in the relationship. They [7:44] had an affair and got caught. they [7:46] caught their spouse having an affair. Uh [7:48] they've lost their job and it created [7:50] tremendous discord in their [7:51] relationship. And that often will feel [7:54] to me like something that perhaps would [7:56] benefit from the intervention of mental [7:59] health professionals or everyone just [8:01] taking a breath and taking a minute, [8:02] especially when there's kids involved, [8:04] but even when there aren't. [8:05] >> Are your clients predominantly men or [8:06] women? [8:07] >> It's pretty much an even split really. [8:09] >> Yeah. I represent a lot of either very [8:12] high achieving high- netw worth [8:14] individuals or people married to them. [8:17] >> And are the reasons that they come to [8:19] you, those two different groups, [8:20] >> different? [8:22] >> Like the reason why they want a [8:23] separation, is it fundamentally [8:25] different? [8:26] >> So the specific example of cheating, I [8:29] would say men get caught cheating more [8:32] often than women. [8:33] >> Does that mean they cheat more? [8:35] >> No, it means they get caught cheating [8:36] more. I I don't think that anyone could [8:39] really truly accurately say, you know, I [8:42] know people love statistics and I know [8:44] that that, you know, guests have a [8:46] tendency to come out and say, well, 72% [8:48] of people who are everything I'm saying [8:50] is based on what I've observed in 25 [8:53] years of facilitating the demise of [8:54] marriages. Men and women both cheat. Men [8:58] cheat in just more scattershot stupid [9:01] ways than women do. When women cheat, in [9:04] my experience professionally, it's [9:06] usually an indication of like the it's [9:08] the absolute end of this relationship. [9:10] The relationship is over and this is [9:12] either a soft place to land or it's sort [9:14] of a final opportunity for this person [9:17] to solidify, this woman to solidify in [9:19] her head that yeah, this thing is over. [9:20] Whereas men, I I've really had hundreds [9:25] at this point of men sit across from me [9:27] who've been caught in an affair or sense [9:30] that they're about to get caught in an [9:32] affair and they say to me like, "Yeah, [9:35] this had nothing to do with my wife. [9:37] Like, I love my wife. It had nothing to [9:38] do with that. It just I don't know. I [9:41] just I don't know why I did what I did. [9:43] I just did it." And I I know everyone [9:45] kind of wants to because in civilized [9:48] society it feels good to kind of go like [9:50] I can't believe that. That's how could [9:52] someone say that? But shut up. Like if [9:55] you have you have potato chips in your [9:56] cabinet, you know, you you you know that [10:00] you're not supposed to eat them. You [10:01] don't want to eat them. You want vibrant [10:03] good health. You want to take care of [10:04] your but they're there. They're there. [10:07] And you're human. And like I can control [10:09] my food environment better than my [10:10] brain. Like I have a lot of resolve when [10:12] I wake up in the morning. But at about 7 [10:14] 8:00 at night when I'm a little bit [10:16] tired and it's been a long day and I [10:18] deserve something nice, if the potato [10:20] chips are there, I'm eating the potato [10:22] chips. Like, we're human. We're human. [10:25] There are times where we're just feeling [10:27] lonely or hungry or angry or tired or [10:31] some combination of those factors. and [10:34] this warm thing like the connection to [10:37] another person, the the joy of [10:38] flirtation, the excitement of of feeling [10:41] the energy between yourself and whatever [10:43] it is type of person that you're [10:45] attracted to. I think it's very normal. [10:48] And then the problem becomes that you're [10:50] not thinking about the consequences of [10:52] those things. If you were thinking about [10:54] the consequences of those things, you'd [10:55] make better choices. But we all know [10:57] that discipline is trading what you want [10:59] now for what you want most. And [11:01] sometimes it's hard to remember what you [11:02] want most and to keep it in your line of [11:04] sight. [11:04] >> So from your experience, you know, if my [11:06] fiance someday ends up walking into your [11:08] practice, what is the [11:11] reason she's likely to end up there from [11:13] her perspective asking you to help her [11:16] get out of the relationship with me? [11:19] the most obvious, if you're going to be [11:21] like the most the average, the [11:22] statistical average, it would be that [11:24] you've stopped seeing her and stopped [11:26] noticing her in in the list of things [11:29] that are important to Steven, that she's [11:32] somewhere in the middle to bottom of [11:33] that list. Like for for a high achiever [11:35] like you, for someone who's [11:36] entrepreneurial in the manner that you [11:38] are, for someone who, you know, lives [11:40] the kind of lifestyle that you do where [11:42] you're on this coast one day and this [11:43] country another day and flying here on a [11:45] moment's notice and getting invitations [11:47] to interesting things and you have to [11:48] triage because you couldn't possibly do [11:50] all the things that you'd like to do. It [11:52] usually would be that she just feels [11:57] herself slipping in the rankings. And I [12:00] think that that is often not a function [12:02] of what you're like that lifestyle I [12:05] just described. It's a function of where [12:08] you take time to fit her into that. [12:11] Because I genuinely have found [12:13] tremendous number of examples of people [12:15] who and this is in the relationship work [12:18] who have that level of intensity in [12:20] their life and that level of chaos in [12:22] their schedule and it's unpredictable [12:24] but they have that ability every morning [12:27] or every afternoon or every once in a [12:29] while but consistently to say hey I have [12:34] a minute between recordings. I just [12:35] wanted you to know I was thinking of [12:36] you. Or hey, you know, I heard that song [12:39] when I was in the car from here to here [12:41] and it makes me think of you and I can't [12:43] wait to see you next week. You know, [12:45] something like that to me, like how hard [12:48] is that? By the way, doesn't have to be [12:50] like a global lifestyle. It could even [12:52] be, hey, we got a couple of kids and two [12:54] dogs and you know, my my mom is sick and [12:57] I got to tend to her so I'm super busy. [13:00] But how do you let your partner know, [13:01] hey, you're still really important. [13:03] we're still really connected to each [13:05] other because that's the number one [13:06] complaint. That's the number one reason, [13:08] particularly with women, that I'm going [13:10] to have a woman sitting across from me [13:12] divorcing someone who's a great [13:13] provider, great protector, great all of [13:16] those things. [13:17] >> That is not obvious to everybody. And [13:20] I'll be honest, it's not it wasn't [13:21] necessarily obvious to me. The way that [13:23] I operate naturally, and this is just [13:25] the way that I am. I've spoken to so [13:27] many of my friends to understand how [13:28] they operate and the way that their [13:30] brain works is when I'm here. [13:32] >> The only thing I'm thinking about is [13:34] this [13:35] >> and I almost I'm remarkable at [13:37] forgetting everything else [13:39] >> and and being completely here. [13:41] >> Now that sounds like a good thing, [13:43] >> but it also means that I can lose 14 [13:46] hours and forget to to check in. I can [13:48] forget, you know. [13:50] >> Is it is it also true when you're with [13:52] her? Yes. When we have scheduled the [13:55] time. [13:56] >> Good. [13:56] >> So, you know, when we schedule the time [13:58] to go and do something together, I'm I'm [13:59] there. I'm not on my phone. I'm not [14:00] doing anything else. [14:01] >> Good. I think that's a tremendous [14:03] priority. I'm hearing more and more from [14:05] people the feeling of, yeah, we're [14:07] together, but we're not together. We're [14:09] sitting there and they're on their phone [14:11] or they're doing other things. And I [14:13] think that it's really really important [14:16] that one of the really important aspects [14:19] of relationship be that there is time [14:21] where you give each other that level of [14:23] focus. But again, you know, like it's [14:25] just not something we are necessarily [14:28] taught. We have maybe we have our [14:30] parents as models, but very often [14:32] they're they're not good models. [14:34] >> What's interesting here as well is for [14:36] some reason I've chosen someone who's [14:37] like the opposite of me in terms of the [14:39] way that I [14:40] >> partly because she Yeah, probably. And [14:42] when I've spoken to some of my friends [14:43] who are quite like me, they've also [14:45] chosen partners who are the opposite of [14:46] them. [14:46] >> Could you imagine? I know. [14:48] >> Could you imagine two of you? Like [14:49] imagine me with me, you know, you with [14:52] you. That would like it would be so [14:53] intense. But [14:54] >> this is why it becomes so easy to [14:56] misunderstand because we go through life [14:58] assuming the other person has the same [15:00] perspective as we do [15:02] >> and they feel the same way that we do [15:04] about things. And [15:05] >> but what's the solution to that? I've [15:08] had to learn [15:10] to [15:12] check in. [15:13] >> Yeah. But don't you think she loves that [15:14] about you? [15:15] >> She does. She actually just sent me a [15:16] message this morning saying, "Thank you [15:17] so much." Because I said when I left [15:18] this time, I said, "Listen, I'm going to [15:19] FaceTime you every day, [15:21] >> even if it's for just one minute." [15:22] [laughter] [15:24] >> Yeah. [15:24] >> So, [15:25] >> isn't that lovely, though? You're still [15:27] trying to figure out how can I be better [15:28] at this thing? And that's amazing. [15:30] That's a beautiful thing. You know [15:32] what's so funny is if I walked into your [15:35] home and on the table there was, you [15:39] know, the power of habit by during or [15:41] the seven habits of highly effective [15:43] people, I would go, "Oh, look at look at [15:45] Stephen. He's still so successful. He's [15:47] still trying to sharpen the point of the [15:48] spear. Amazing." You know, but if you [15:50] walk in and you see a book, you know, [15:51] how to stay in love, you go, "Things all [15:53] right with Stephen? Like things going [15:54] okay? What's going on with the [15:56] relationship?" Why? Why don't we as a [15:59] society just acknowledge we're we're [16:01] kind of bad at this? We're kind of bad [16:03] at maintaining connection. We're kind of [16:05] bad at helping like feeling loved and [16:07] feeling worthy of love and helping our [16:09] partner feel loved and figuring out how [16:11] to maintain connection. And maybe the [16:13] key is that little thing, that one [16:17] minute facetime, that one minute of [16:20] saying, "Hey, maybe we should try this [16:22] other thing." What are you actually [16:24] saying? What you're actually saying is, [16:26] "I want to be good at this job. How can [16:30] I be good at this job? How can I stay [16:32] good at it? How can I get even better at [16:34] it?" Like, we go for the job interview [16:36] and we want this job so bad. Like, [16:38] that's what dating is. Dating is I'm [16:41] sending my resume all over the place. [16:44] I'm sending it all over the place. I [16:45] hope I can find something, something [16:46] that suits my skills and my needs and [16:48] where they want me and I'll be well [16:50] compensated and I'll get something from [16:51] it and I'll give something to it because [16:52] I have all this talent and I have all [16:54] this stuff and I want to give it to a [16:56] worthy cause and I want to be [16:57] compensated for that and I want to feel [16:59] part of something. That's all dating is [17:01] is it's a job interview and then you get [17:03] the job and for a little while you're [17:05] like I got the job. It's the oh my god [17:07] you should see the office is amazing and [17:10] you should and I could I knew exactly [17:11] what's going you know there's room for [17:12] growth. There's room for growth in this [17:14] job. It's going to be great, you know, [17:15] and I I really feel like there's room [17:16] for advancement. Like, this could be the [17:18] job. This could be my career. This could [17:20] be my vocation. It could be meaningful [17:22] and wonderful. I think I have something [17:23] I could contribute to. And we're so [17:25] excited. And you jump ahead 3 years [17:27] later and we're like, that [ __ ] job. [17:29] That job. Yeah. No, I got to go to work [17:31] again. Like, yep. All right. Here we go. [17:33] That's it. You know, I got a friend who [17:34] just got the best job. Oh my god. They [17:37] had their they got the great and that's [17:39] all we instead of trying to remember [17:42] that at some point the relationship that [17:46] you're in was something you aspired to [17:49] like the idea that you were someday [17:52] going to find a person who just was your [17:55] favorite person and you were their [17:57] favorite person and you were going to be [17:59] there for each other and see each [18:00] other's blind spots and help each other [18:02] like figure out who you are and be it [18:05] and that you were going to grow together [18:07] and change together. And some core [18:09] things would stay exactly the same. And [18:11] some things would change in beautiful, [18:13] meaningful ways. And you'd see each [18:15] other through amazing things and [18:16] terrible things and all the things that [18:18] the world throws at you. You'd never be [18:20] alone again because you'd have this [18:23] person like, and somehow [18:26] it's considered sort of odd to check in [18:30] and want to be good at that job and have [18:32] performance reviews. Like, you run [18:34] teams. you run so many teams. How how [18:37] often do you go, we don't need to have [18:38] performance reviews? [18:40] >> I think at the heart of this is we [18:42] assume probably through media and social [18:44] media that relationships are supposed to [18:46] be effortless. [18:48] >> Why? [18:48] >> I don't just kind of what you see, [18:50] right? Like I remember I remember um my [18:53] girlfriend telling me the other day, she [18:54] was like, "Oh, there's this couple I [18:56] follow on Instagram and they're like [18:58] amazing. um they're like the perfect [19:00] couple and it's just just turned out [19:02] that the guy is sleeping with someone [19:04] else. [19:04] >> Yeah. And I thought and again I thought [19:06] well that watch my girlfriend [19:08] vicariously watching that couple for the [19:10] last 5 years has probably increased her [19:12] expectations on what a relationship [19:13] should be cuz she's just had this sort [19:15] of two dimensional window but there was [19:17] some [19:19] the natural mess of relationship was [19:20] taking place outside of you and we all [19:23] just have the 2D window like [19:24] relationship problems on Instagram [19:26] broadcasting that doesn't doesn't drive [19:27] [clears throat] followership. No. And [19:29] what what what I'll also say is look, we [19:31] formulate a lot of our conception of [19:34] what a relationship should look like by [19:37] portrayals of relationships in film and [19:40] television, right? Yeah. Okay. So, [19:43] >> can we agree that the romcom or the [19:46] romantic film [19:48] is basically just an emotional version [19:51] of pornography? like it's a stylized [19:55] excerted falsehood that's designed to [19:59] amplify the the most visually and [20:01] emotionally compelling or stimulating [20:04] aspects of things like yes there's [20:07] conflict but it gets cleaned up very [20:08] neatly and very nicely like there's it's [20:11] so this perception that that [20:12] relationships should be effortless [20:15] is based I think on largely that which [20:18] is this feeling that and again whether a [20:20] story is a comedy or a tragedy depends [20:22] and where you end the story, right? So, [20:25] we always end the story in a spot where [20:26] it's like, "Tada, they're in love and [20:28] they walk off hand in hand." But, right, [20:30] they walk off into life. They walk off [20:33] into this ecosystem of life that's [20:36] filled with complexity and there's [20:38] factors beyond our control that are [20:39] impacting our emotional state, the [20:41] emotional state of our partner, the you, [20:42] the me, and the Wii. So, there's a lot [20:45] going on and and the thought that, well, [20:48] this should be effortless. everything [20:50] else is a lot of work and potentially [20:52] and by the way the opposite [20:55] like this is effortless and this is a [20:57] drudgery and we tend to just see things [21:00] in that binary way unnecessarily like [21:04] we've made so much progress as a society [21:06] when it comes to not viewing everything [21:08] in a binary like there's there's not as [21:10] much rigidity about gender roles anymore [21:12] there's not as rigidity about you know [21:16] are you a worker are you like a career [21:18] person or a family person like there's a [21:20] sense of weight. You can kind of be a [21:22] little bit of both. Like look at these [21:23] things as a spectrum a little bit. So, [21:26] but this we're still pretty glued into [21:28] this idea that like relationships are [21:30] supposed to be the smoothest, easiest [21:31] thing or relationships are hard work. [21:34] You're not supposed to be happy all the [21:35] time. And shut up if you think that [21:36] that's what you oh you're not happy. [21:38] Nobody's happy or you're not supposed to [21:39] be happy. That's not the point of [21:40] marriage. The point of marriage is a [21:42] commitment. [21:42] >> Are relationships supposed to be simple? [21:45] >> I don't know what you mean by simple. [21:47] Simple to navigate? No, they're [21:48] obviously not simple to navigate because [21:50] 56% of them end in divorce. [21:52] >> Is it going to be hard? [21:53] >> If your definition of hard is I have to [21:57] pay some level of attention to it, then [22:01] yes, it's going to be hard. Is that [22:03] hard? Like, is that hard? Really? Is [22:06] that hard? Like, I don't think it's that [22:08] hard. Paying attention isn't that hard. [22:13] Remembering to pay attention might be [22:16] hard, but don't you create reminders for [22:20] yourself? You've got so many gadgets and [22:22] you can't have some reminder in the day [22:25] of like, oh [22:27] her, keep her in my line of sight. [22:29] Again, it doesn't mean you don't love [22:31] her, that she's not front of mind. It [22:32] means you're a driven, hardworking [22:34] person. I'm a driven, hardworking [22:36] person. There's tons of times where very [22:39] important things in my life aren't front [22:40] of mind. But that's why I use reminders. [22:43] >> So to invert that question that I asked [22:45] at the top of this, if I am to come to [22:47] you at some point in the future, James, [22:49] and I say, "Listen, I need a divorce." [22:52] >> What am I likely to give as the reason [22:53] for that based on, you know, who I am [22:56] and how that correlates to the clients [22:57] like me that you deal with? [22:59] >> Yeah. So the reason you're going to give [23:01] and the underlying reason is different. [23:03] So, the the reason you're going to give [23:04] is going to be a practical reason, which [23:06] is either I've met someone else, she's [23:08] met someone else, um we've had a [23:11] terrible fight and uh I've said things [23:13] that we can't take back. I had a [23:16] spectacular failure financially and [23:18] she's just bailing on me because she [23:20] sees that the future's really rocky or [23:23] she made some terrible decision and did [23:26] something awful that's a betrayal that I [23:28] can't abide by. But again, that's the [23:31] presenting reason. [23:34] Underneath that is the bigger reason, [23:36] which is we lost the plot. [23:38] We lost the plot. Like that that's a [23:41] that's the start of a chapter in a [23:43] story. It's the end of a chapter and the [23:45] start of a chapter. That photo like the [23:47] first chapter in that story was was was [23:51] this person and this person wandering [23:53] around on the same planet trying to [23:56] figure it out, trying to figure out what [23:57] they're doing. And they have their [23:58] origin story and they have their you [24:01] know their complimentary pathologies [24:03] that developed over time and then you [24:07] know they found each other. 8 billion [24:09] people in the world and somehow their [24:11] paths intersected you know and they [24:14] started to have this connection and so [24:17] there was the you and there was the me [24:18] and then there was the Wii and that ven [24:21] diagram started right and then you start [24:24] to fill it with things you fill it with [24:26] people. You fill it with experiences. [24:28] And this is just a stop along the way [24:31] like this. These two people, this is [24:33] just a moment. It's an incredible [24:35] moment. It can be like kuman. It can be [24:38] like a moment that there was this and [24:41] then everything after this. It's a [24:42] punctuation mark. Like I like to say [24:44] that life has punctuation marks. Like [24:47] you had a kid, you lost your job, you [24:50] got a job, whatever. Those are [24:51] punctuation marks. This is a big [24:53] punctuation mark. And it will either be [24:56] you know the beginning of the end or the [24:59] end of the beginning. You get to write [25:00] that. You get to write that chapter. But [25:03] this is a moment for me. The reason why [25:05] this is a beautiful moment is this is a [25:08] moment of tremendous optimism. This is a [25:11] moment where the two of you said you're [25:13] my favorite person and and I I want to [25:16] write this next chapter with you as as [25:21] having a different title in it. But [25:23] really, like the title's just a symbol. [25:26] The the ring is just a symbol. It's just [25:29] a symbol of a commitment. It's a symbol [25:31] of of a promise. And all a promises is a [25:35] symbol of intention. That's all. It's [25:37] just an intention. Our intention is [25:38] we're not going to be alone anymore. [25:40] We're going to do this together. And by [25:41] the way, you're already not alone. The [25:43] fact that you got to this place that you [25:44] would ask this question, that that's a [25:47] beautiful confirmation of the fact that [25:49] you don't feel alone. [25:50] >> We would have lost the plot. [25:52] Yeah. Yeah. You would have lost the plot [25:54] of the story. I So, this is a story. [25:57] Where does this story go? Where do you [25:58] want it to go? You want it to go to a [26:00] future that features the two of you old [26:04] together someday. Maybe it features [26:06] children. Maybe it features companion [26:09] animals. [26:09] >> And what what is the most likely reason [26:11] that we would lose the plot? [26:12] >> You stop paying attention. [26:14] >> You stop you stop doing what you're [26:16] currently do. How did you get to this [26:18] beautiful moment? You start doing the [26:20] opposite. You got to this moment by [26:23] paying attention. You got to this moment [26:25] by making this a priority. You got to [26:27] this moment by by keeping this front of [26:30] mind. By valuing what is this but a [26:32] symbol of you are valuable to me. Why [26:34] did you get on one knee? Why do you get [26:37] on one knee? I mean, think about the [26:39] symbols of all of this. We live in a [26:41] world of symbols. Like the outfit I'm [26:44] wearing, I'm saying something to you. I [26:47] take this seriously. That's why you wear [26:49] a suit. is you wear a suit to say I take [26:51] this seriously. So what why did you do [26:54] this? What is this as simple? I'm down [26:55] on one knee. Why? I'm humbling myself in [26:58] front of you. I'm offering something to [27:00] you. I'm hoping you will accept the gift [27:02] I am giving to you. Like there's [27:04] something very lovely about that symbol. [27:06] >> Is this is this what you call slippage? [27:09] >> Slippage is exactly when you start to [27:13] unintentionally again people rarely have [27:15] slippage intentionally. It's usually [27:18] that, okay, we got that knocked out. Now [27:22] we can focus on the other stuff. And [27:24] that's slippage. Slippage is these small [27:27] disconnections. Small disconnections [27:30] that in of themselves mean nothing. Like [27:34] no single raindrops responsible for the [27:36] flood. That little raindrop, it's just a [27:38] little raindrop. That's all it really [27:40] is. But slippage is this gradually [27:44] increasing number of small [27:47] disconnections that eventually leads to [27:49] the giant marriage killer that you come [27:52] in and say, "Here's why we're getting [27:54] divorced." But it wasn't that. It it was [27:57] all these little pieces, but at some [28:00] point you were there. [28:02] >> Do you think people [28:04] spot the slippage in the moment, but [28:06] they don't think it's big enough to [28:07] fight about or do something about? [28:08] >> 100%. And that's that's the cognitive [28:11] bias. That's the fallacy that will keep [28:14] me in business for the rest of my life [28:17] because people just don't want temporary [28:21] discomfort. Like our desire for joy [28:25] versus our aversion to pain, our [28:28] aversion to pain will win every single [28:30] time. We know this. That's why there was [28:33] an opiate crisis more so than a cocaine [28:36] crisis. Because one of those things is [28:38] about making you feel really good and [28:39] the other is about getting rid of pain. [28:42] Like the the human desire any scientist [28:45] will tell you this ask our friend Andrew [28:46] Huberman ask anybody they will tell you [28:48] the human desire to escape pain is the [28:52] controlling aspect of self. So escaping [28:57] pain even discomfort even dis and again [29:00] this is this is pushed by the narrative [29:02] that love should be easy. If you're [29:04] going to make if anything's [29:05] uncomfortable about it, you must be [29:06] doing it wrong. Maybe you're not with [29:08] your soulmate. You know, it would be so [29:10] easy and effortless. You'd always know [29:11] what the other person wanted. You'd [29:13] never have to tell them. They would [29:14] know. They would know you well enough to [29:15] know what it is that you need. And they [29:17] would get you. Even though, by the way, [29:19] really, really like I'm 53 years old. [29:23] I've been in therapy for 20 years. [29:26] I get like 70% of this guy, I think, [29:30] like at best. Like, and I'm in here. I'm [29:33] in here and I get about 70% of this guy. [29:37] Like, and I'm supposed to get you a [29:39] 100%. [29:40] Because we're exchanging bodily fluids. [29:42] Like, we're I'm supposed to just cuz [29:44] we've slept in the same bed, I'm [29:45] supposed to get you 100% and get ahead [29:48] of stuff. Like, I get me 70%. And that's [29:51] with a lot of reflection. So, I I really [29:53] think that it's wildly unfair for us to [29:58] to to think that, you know, this should [30:00] be effortless, this should be easy, and [30:02] that it should never be uncomfortable. [30:04] It's okay to be like I I think because [30:06] of what I do for a living, I have to [30:08] tell people things they don't want to [30:10] hear all day because it's true. And I [30:14] tell them what they need to hear and not [30:15] what they want to hear. And you know, [30:17] when clients say to me at the end of a [30:18] consultation or conversation like, "Oh [30:20] my god, I feel so much better." better. [30:21] I always go, "That's great. That wasn't [30:23] my intention." Because I don't want [30:25] anyone I talk to professionally to think [30:27] I am telling you something to make you [30:29] feel better. I'm not here to make you [30:30] feel better. I'm not a therapist. I'm [30:32] here to tell you the truth. And if the [30:34] truth makes you feel better, great. If [30:36] the truth makes you uncomfortable, at [30:38] least you know the truth now. So, I feel [30:41] like in relationship again, if what you [30:43] want most is lasting lifelong connection [30:48] where we get each other as best we can, [30:50] we can help each other navigate self and [30:52] each other as best we can and we cannot [30:56] lose the plot of a story that is really [31:00] beautiful right now. So, everybody [31:02] listening can probably think about [31:03] something in their relationship which [31:05] has gotten a little bit worse [31:08] >> since they first got into that [31:10] relationship. And it could be the way [31:12] that they argue is getting a little bit [31:15] worse. They're not listening as much. [31:17] >> Maybe the voice the the tone has gone up [31:19] or it's getting a little bit more angry. [31:21] >> Um, whatever it is in their [31:22] relationship, what do they need to do [31:24] now? It's like it's not flooded yet. [31:27] >> Yeah. [31:27] >> But there's [31:28] >> best time to look at it, best time to [31:29] talk about it. There's a puddle. [31:31] >> So, what I do for a living in court [31:34] is I try to manipulate people's [31:36] emotional state. That's my job. Like, my [31:38] job is to go and make the judge like my [31:40] client, dislike the other side. I want [31:41] the other side to feel scared. I want my [31:43] client to feel safe. I want the court [31:44] reporter who's taking things down and [31:46] the court officer to like me and to like [31:48] my client so that when we take a break [31:50] in testimony and they go in the back [31:52] with the judge, they go, "I like Jim. [31:53] He's a really good lawyer." Or, "Oh, his [31:55] client seems so nice." Or, "Boy, the [31:56] other guy seems like a jerk." Or, "Boy, [31:58] that other lawyer is a jerk." Like so [31:59] I'm here manipulating people's emotional [32:01] state. That's my job. Like that's what a [32:03] trial lawyer does. We manipulate [32:04] people's emotional state. We play with [32:06] the levers, right? So I say this as to [32:10] say [32:11] we should be doing this in our [32:13] relationships. There's nothing nefarious [32:15] about that. These are tools and how you [32:18] use them will will give you a sense of [32:20] whether it's good or bad or what. Look, [32:22] if what you are doing is to maintain [32:25] connection, how you parse it is going to [32:28] be everything. So, even the way you just [32:30] said that, like, well, something's kind [32:31] of going wrong in the relationship. [32:33] Okay, we're already off to the wrong [32:35] narrative because when someone tells you [32:37] something's been done wrong, there's [32:39] this automatic defensive response of, [32:41] well, I didn't mean to do it wrong and [32:42] well, you know, it's not my fault that I [32:44] did it wrong. It brings out something [32:45] defensive in us rather than saying [32:48] something's changed. Have you noticed [32:51] that something changed? Have you noticed [32:52] that remember when we used to talk to [32:54] each other about you know sometimes like [32:55] and I don't know if it's something that [32:56] I've done and if it is you know I I I [32:58] really would appreciate you telling me [33:00] but like when we have been fighting [33:02] lately like that the tone seems to have [33:04] changed. Have you noticed that? Is it [33:06] just me? I now it's a non-defensive [33:09] dialogue. I'm not accusing you of [33:11] something. I'm noting that something has [33:14] changed. And by the way, good. We love [33:17] each look at how much we love each other [33:20] in that picture. Like look at put the [33:22] wedding photos up somewhere. Look at [33:25] that moment. We were nuts about each [33:27] other in that moment. We were everything [33:29] the other person ever wanted and more. [33:32] So anytime something has changed from [33:34] that, don't you want to know? Don't you [33:37] want to know? And by the way, not in an [33:39] accusatory fashion. The most common one [33:41] is we're not having sex as much as we [33:43] used to. We're not having sex. We're not [33:45] having much sex. I'm not getting as much [33:46] oral sex as I used to get. We're not [33:48] getting Okay, there's a way to say that [33:50] the way I just said it. That's just [33:52] going to blow up in your face. It's not [33:53] going to work because it's, well, well, [33:55] YOU HAVEN'T BEEN AROUND AS MUCH. WELL, I [33:56] HAVEN'T BEEN AROUND AS much cuz I'm [33:57] working so much and I don't see you [33:59] spending less. Well, you know, honestly, [34:00] if it comes down to that, I'd spend a [34:02] lot to not have you treat me this way. [34:04] Now, we're just having a fight. Whereas, [34:06] if we say like, oh, remember how clo [34:08] remember when we went away? I was just [34:09] thinking yesterday about when we went [34:11] away that weekend. Remember we ended up [34:12] not even leaving the room? It was so [34:14] fun. I love when we're like feeling that [34:16] connected and close, you know? I feel [34:17] like I feel like lately sometimes like [34:19] we're maybe not as connected and close [34:21] like and if there's something I'm I'm [34:23] doing that's making that like I I really [34:25] want to get it right. Like I really want [34:27] to get it right. You know, there's [34:28] something about [34:30] apologizing first, like having some [34:33] humility in relationship that has [34:35] tremendous value. Like when a lawyer [34:38] like I'll I'll tell you one of my trade [34:39] secrets. You know, I my job is a very [34:42] combative job sometimes. So, there's [34:45] times where being very aggressive is the [34:46] right move. But there's times where [34:47] being aggressive just doesn't accomplish [34:49] anything. And if I'm interacting with a [34:51] lawyer for the first time, this is [34:52] someone I haven't had cases with. So, we [34:54] don't know each other except by [34:55] reputation and they come at me really [34:58] hard, the first thing I'll do is [35:00] apologize. I'll say, "You know, I I I'm [35:03] sorry. I just have to say like your tone [35:05] like you're coming at me like it if I [35:08] said something in our initial [35:09] interaction that made you feel like that [35:12] I didn't have respect for you or that [35:14] you know I didn't value your perspective [35:17] or like it I have a tendency to [35:18] interrupt people sometimes I have a [35:20] tendency to so if I offended you I [35:21] apologize because the way that you're [35:23] kind of talking to me like I feel like I [35:25] must have said something wrong or I must [35:27] have so I apologize absolutely if I did [35:30] what is the per what choice do they have [35:32] but to then [35:33] Oh, no, no, that's that's just my tone. [35:35] That's just how I Oh, yeah, of course. [35:37] Look, hey, we all have a game face or I [35:39] just felt like, oh my god, like this [35:40] guy's coming at me so hard. Like I I [35:42] felt like I must have said something [35:43] inadvertently or, you know, and and then [35:45] everyone's kind of calmer now, you know? [35:48] So I think that this is a very easy way [35:52] to invite discussion about these small [35:55] preventative maintenance things without [35:57] turning it into a whole like because we [35:59] again we just think that oh if I bring [36:01] that up it's going to turn into a whole [36:02] thing. It doesn't have to turn into a [36:04] whole thing period. [36:06] >> Yeah. Yeah, I think I asked that in part [36:07] because I it's something that I I've [36:10] like subtly noticed that when we were [36:12] when we first met 7 years ago, we were [36:14] much more patient. [36:16] >> And I'm like, I probably need to have a [36:18] conversation about returning to being [36:21] more patient when we're trying to solve [36:22] problems. We kind of like rush through [36:23] them now. And I just I'm like, oh, you [36:25] play this forward. [36:27] >> You play this forward a decade or two [36:28] decades. I'm like, damn, we're really [36:30] not going to be great at solving [36:30] problems if we don't just like slow down [36:33] with them. Yeah. And [36:34] >> a lot of that just means like listening [36:35] to the other person's point of view a [36:36] bit bit more intently. [36:37] >> Yeah. And that's hard. That's hard [36:39] because you know your your brain moves [36:42] quickly. Like it's something I struggle [36:43] with in relationship for sure. Like any [36:46] kind of relationship is I'm very like [36:47] all right, come on. We got to land this [36:48] plane. Like let's go. Like skip to the [36:50] end. Time is money. Like what are we [36:51] what are we doing? Where are we going [36:52] with this? Like and I I'm terrible at [36:54] it. I interrupt people constantly. Like [36:56] I'm I'm not good at that. And it's [36:59] something I'm working on because I I I [37:02] think I know what they have to say next. [37:05] And I'm wrong a lot of the time, [37:07] especially in relationship, I'm wrong. [37:08] Like it's not a popular opinion to say [37:10] that men and women are different, but [37:12] men and women are different. And and and [37:15] I don't say that to say one is superior [37:16] and one is inferior. I say that to say [37:19] that we're different. We we navigate [37:21] things differently. We experience life [37:24] differently. We're treated differently [37:26] from a societal standpoint. We've had [37:28] different life experiences and I [37:30] genuinely believe that it would be very [37:33] valuable for us in relationship to to [37:37] sort of think, hey, I don't really know [37:39] everything about how this person is [37:41] wired. It took me fully [37:45] 40 some odd years, if not 50, to figure [37:48] out that if I'm in a romantic [37:52] relationship with a woman and she comes [37:53] home and starts telling me about [37:55] something that's upsetting to her, that [37:57] she doesn't want what my male friends [37:59] want. Like if I called a buddy of mine, [38:01] if I called you, I've called you before. [38:02] If I called you and I said, "Stephen, [38:04] I'm having this problem, man. I'm [38:05] dealing with one of my sons and he's [38:07] doing XYZ." I ex if you went, "That must [38:10] be very hard, Jim. I'd be like, "Yes, it [38:13] is, Stephen. That's why I called you. Do [38:15] you have any suggestions? Like, what do [38:17] you think I should do here? Like, you're [38:18] a smart guy. I called you cuz I wanted [38:20] you to help me." Very often, that is the [38:22] opposite. Most women want you to hear [38:26] them. Give them some support. You guys [38:29] can have this conversation. A couple can [38:32] have this conversation. You can say, [38:34] "Hey, listen. right now in this moment, [38:38] we're not you're not coming to me with a [38:39] problem. But when you come to me with a [38:42] problem, my natural proclivity is to [38:44] start throwing solutions. And I've I've [38:46] learned or I I heard Stexton say on [38:49] Steven's show that, you know, maybe [38:51] that's not the best way. Do you find [38:53] that's true? Like, do you want me to [38:54] maybe like when you say these things, [38:56] could I because again, this is a job. I [38:58] want to be good at this job. Why Why is [39:01] it wrong for me to ask you how to how [39:03] can I be better at this job? I found it [39:05] really useful to state explicitly to my [39:08] fiance what my needs are in those [39:10] situations. And again, it didn't come [39:12] naturally to her and vice versa. Like it [39:14] didn't what she needs from me in those [39:16] situations [39:18] is the opposite of what I need from her [39:19] in those situations. I'm thinking [39:20] particularly when she's like going [39:21] through something and she's struggling [39:22] with something. She wants me to [39:27] be be present and she [39:31] um often wants like some advice on it [39:34] and she [39:38] and her advice is like the opposite of [39:39] mine often and in the inverse when I'm [39:42] going through those situations [39:45] I actually [39:48] don't want to talk about it at all. [39:49] >> Yeah. [39:50] >> I just wanted to be there. [39:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. But please, [39:52] >> she wants to talk about I don't want to [39:53] talk about it. [39:54] >> But what but what would be wrong with [39:57] saying in that moment? [40:01] I've got a menu. [40:03] I've got a menu for you. Can you tell me [40:06] which one you want? Cuz just like just [40:08] like you said, you're hungry. And I [40:10] said, "What are you hungry for? Do you [40:11] want sushi? Do you want me to make you [40:14] something? Do you want some cheese [40:15] toast? Do you want us to go out [40:17] someplace and we can get burgers? What [40:19] is it you want?" Right? Couldn't you [40:21] just say, "Hey, I've got a menu. I can [40:24] just listen and tell you I love you and [40:26] just be here. I can give you some [40:30] solutions and and how I might handle the [40:32] problem. I can try to distract you and [40:36] tell you a funny story about something [40:37] that happened to me today or I can pick [40:39] you up and tickle you. We can go in the [40:41] other room and roll around in the sheets [40:42] for a little while and take your mind [40:43] off it and then we can figure out which [40:45] of the other options you might want. We [40:47] can go for a walk together and we can [40:49] talk about it or not talk about it. What [40:51] would you like on the menu? Because [40:52] that's I'm serving all of those things [40:54] for you. Which one would you like? And [40:57] the worst thing she could say is, "I [40:59] don't know." And you go, "Okay, then I'm [41:01] going to pick one. I'm going to pick [41:03] one. And if it feels good, great. And if [41:05] it doesn't, you'll tell me, okay? And I [41:07] won't be offended." Like again, what' [41:09] that take, Stephen? 30 seconds. 30 [41:12] seconds. Throw that out there. Like [41:15] that. That's instead of just blindly [41:17] throwing darts at the target, not [41:19] knowing where the target is. [41:21] >> If you had to give everybody listening [41:24] one relationship ritual that you would [41:27] think would most increase the [41:29] probability that they stay together, [41:31] stay in love. [41:32] >> What would that relationship ritual be? [41:36] >> I think that once a week you should make [41:38] a specific task of telling your partner [41:41] three things that you really like about [41:43] them. [41:45] And every week it should be something [41:47] different. I think you should tell your [41:48] partner if you really want to want to [41:50] take the advanced edition of this. If [41:52] you want to turn it from a 30- secondond [41:54] task into like a whole five minutes that [41:55] you devote to your relationship, you [41:57] know, I feel about relationship [41:58] maintenance the way that if you've ever [42:00] heard the story, I think the Daly Lama [42:01] is the one credited with saying it. [42:03] That's that a high high-end executive, [42:05] you know, paid a colossal amount of [42:06] money to have a private audience with [42:08] the Daly Lama. And the Daly Lama said to [42:10] him, you know, um, if you're searching [42:12] for inner peace, you should meditate for [42:14] 15 minutes a day. And the executive [42:16] said, I don't have 15 minutes a day to [42:18] meditate. He said, then you should [42:19] meditate for an hour a day. I feel the [42:22] same way. If you don't have five minutes [42:24] a week to devote to your spouse or [42:26] partner, then you're going to need [42:28] hours. I think you should actually set [42:30] aside hours. Like five minutes a week, I [42:33] would suggest the following exact s just [42:35] systematic basic thing. This is what my [42:38] next book is about. out. It's about a [42:39] systematic approach to being good at [42:41] love. And the idea is [42:44] once a week, I think here's the advanced [42:46] version, but minimum just write down, [42:50] send an email, send a text, whatever it [42:51] is, tell your partner three things that [42:54] you love about them. [42:57] The advanced version is tell your [42:58] partner three things you love about [43:00] them. Tell them three times this week [43:02] that they made you feel loved. Here's [43:05] three things you did this week that made [43:06] me feel loved. Like here's three. When [43:08] you sent me that message and said that [43:10] made me feel so soft, that made me feel [43:11] very loved. Like whatever it is, I'm [43:13] sure you could find off the top of your [43:14] head three things that she did this week [43:16] that made you feel loved. And it's only [43:18] Monday. [43:19] >> People at home are in relationships [43:21] right now. They're hearing you say that [43:23] and some of them are still not going to [43:25] do it. Why do you think they're not [43:27] going to do it? Like what is that mental [43:29] conversation they're having where they [43:30] go? [43:30] >> I think we're I Well, I think we're I [43:32] think they think it's pointless. I think [43:34] they they might be at a point in their [43:36] relationship where it feels like what [43:38] would be the point we're so far gone it [43:39] wouldn't help. I think more than [43:42] anything my my real feeling on this the [43:46] secret that I don't think people want to [43:48] say out loud [43:50] I think we're terrified. I think we're [43:53] terrified. And I think what we're [43:54] terrified of is not [43:57] is not the future of our relationship. I [44:00] think what we're terrified of is that we [44:02] we feel like we're not worthy of love. I [44:05] think it's most people's fundamental [44:06] terror. I think most people's [44:08] fundamental fear is that if you knew me, [44:10] you wouldn't love me. If you could see [44:14] me, the real me, like the me that's in [44:18] here, all the weakness, all the fear, [44:22] all the horrible selfish thoughts, all [44:25] the perversity, all the all the darkest [44:29] things that are inside of me and every [44:31] single one of us that if you could if [44:33] you saw that, you couldn't possibly love [44:36] me. and [44:40] the feeling that comes with that which [44:42] is so you love the character I'm playing [44:47] that's not showing you all those things. [44:49] I'm just I'm just showing you the best [44:51] parts of myself. If you saw the real me, [44:54] you wouldn't really love me. I think our [44:56] greatest fear is that we're not worthy [44:57] of love. And I think that there's a part [45:00] of us that's afraid to like poke at what [45:04] do you love about me? What do I love [45:07] about you? How how what am I getting [45:10] wrong? Like again, like finishing that [45:13] exercise, [45:15] you know, here's some things. Here's [45:17] three things I love about you. Here's [45:19] three things you did this week that made [45:22] me feel loved. Here's three things I [45:25] could have done better. Or tell me three [45:28] things I could have done better. Or tell [45:29] your partner three things they could [45:30] have done better. And then if you want [45:31] to have a fun one thrown in there, cuz I [45:33] think you should end on fun stuff, [45:34] here's three things you did this week [45:35] that made me want to have sex with you. [45:38] >> I guess some people would [45:40] are listening right now and they're [45:41] thinking, well, you know, I'm I'm dating [45:43] Barry or they think I'm dating Joanne [45:45] and she is she is not verbally intimate [45:49] in this way. She would, if I suggested [45:52] this to her, [45:52] >> write it down. Don't do it. You don't [45:53] have to do it verbally. I think verbally [45:55] is too much pressure on people. But but [45:56] even written down, if I told Dave that [45:58] we're going to start writing these notes [45:59] to each other about three things I love, [46:00] he's going to cringe and he's [46:01] >> [ __ ] [ __ ] Honestly, really, [46:05] that's that's too hard. It's too much of [46:06] an ask. Like Dave, I don't care what [46:09] Dave does for a living. Dave could be a [46:10] ditch digger for a living who's not [46:11] articulate in any way. Dave is moving in [46:15] with you. Dave married you. Dave went [46:18] out and put his money on the counter and [46:20] bought a ring. Dave Dave can't name [46:22] three things he likes about you. Really, [46:24] Dave? Is that a big ask? Is that hard, [46:26] Dave? Like, come on. That I absolutely [46:29] call [ __ ] on that. Maybe he doesn't [46:31] want to. Okay, that's a different [46:32] conversation. Why don't you want to? [46:34] Why? What's uncomfortable about that for [46:36] you? [46:36] >> It is uncomfortable for some people, [46:38] isn't it? [46:38] >> Yeah, it's very uncomfortable for some [46:40] people. [46:40] >> It's quite interesting that you could be [46:41] in a loving relationship with someone, [46:43] but also be at some deeper level scared [46:45] of intimacy. And I'll be honest, because [46:49] it's just me and you, nobody's [46:50] listening. [46:50] >> Sure. Of course. [46:51] >> I think at some client privilege. [46:53] >> Yeah. [laughter] [46:54] I think at some level I've always been [46:57] scared of intimacy. It makes it sound [46:58] more conscious than it is, [47:00] >> but at some deeper level I've always [47:02] been, I don't know, a bit disconnected [47:05] intimately when it comes to like [47:08] uh being able to articulate [47:11] >> these things. We keep it simple. That [47:14] that's why I want to keep that simple. I [47:16] didn't say what is what is your love for [47:19] me rooted in and what is the nature of [47:22] our connection and how does it fit into [47:23] the broader context like I had a very [47:26] challenging relationship with my mother [47:27] growing up and I feel like you fill some [47:30] of the wounds that guys we don't need [47:32] like Sigman Freud doesn't have to show [47:33] up in the relationship [47:35] what are three we could do it right now [47:38] in this relationship what are three [47:40] things I like about you what are three [47:43] experiences you and I have had with each [47:45] other that made each other laugh. Like [47:48] we have a friendship. Like what a joy [47:50] that is by the way. Like what a joy it [47:52] is to sit across from someone and say, [47:54] "You know what I like about you?" [ __ ] [47:56] man. I I want to hear that list. Like [47:58] that's lovely. [47:59] >> Do you think the whole idea of people [48:01] being avoidant and sort of anxious? You [48:04] know, this attachment style and stuff. [48:05] Do is that does that stuff track to what [48:07] you've seen? It does. But you know, I I [48:09] also think too like I don't understand [48:11] why we treat our connections to other [48:14] people differently than things we are [48:17] like exercise. Exercise. Okay. Haven't [48:21] been to the gym in a while. You go to [48:23] the gym, you're going to be sore. You're [48:25] not going to be able to lift a lot. [48:27] You're going to have to start slow. And [48:29] for a couple days, you're going to be [48:30] sore. And if you go, oo, I that was I [48:33] was very sore after that. I'm not going [48:34] back to the gym. Okay. then you're never [48:36] going to get fit and you're never going [48:38] to get past the sore stage. Cuz if you [48:40] go, I'll wait a month and then I'll go [48:41] back and do the same thing again. Guess [48:42] what? You're just going to You have to [48:44] move through the uncomfortable part to [48:47] get to the part where it starts to feel [48:48] really good and you're not as sore. [48:50] Yeah, you'll sometimes still be sore. [48:51] You pushed it a little too hard. Maybe [48:52] worked out with Huberman that week. But [48:54] you know what? Other weeks like you go, [48:55] "Hey, I don't feel sore. I just feel [48:57] strong and healthy." So, there's going [48:59] to be moments where this might feel a [49:00] little weird. It might feel a little [49:02] awkward. It might feel a little sore. [49:03] There might be weeks where that kind of [49:04] a simple little practice feels a little [49:07] like, oh, it feels a little [49:08] uncomfortable. Or, yeah, the list of [49:10] things that you did this week that made [49:11] me feel loved, I have to reach for it. [49:13] Okay, great. Isn't that little [49:16] uncomfortable conversation that might [49:19] prevent slippage? Isn't that little [49:21] conversation better than the long-term [49:26] impact of having a distance start [49:28] growing between the two of you that [49:30] eventually becomes impossible to [49:32] navigate because it becomes a chasm [49:34] between the two of you? [49:37] >> Do you think the attachment style theory [49:40] has any truth to it from what you've [49:42] seen? Do you tend to find people are, [49:44] you know, there's some people that are [49:45] avoidant of intimacy, there's some [49:46] people that are anxious, there's some [49:47] people in the middle. [49:48] >> Yeah. I mean, look, I I think that we're [49:50] all creatures of our our upbringing, and [49:54] I think a lot of our I'm amazed as a [49:57] 53-year-old man in therapy how often [50:01] a lot of my challenges are rooted in [50:03] seven-year-old Jim. [50:05] >> As a man that talks so much about love, [50:07] I'm I'm curious to know what it is that [50:08] you still struggle with in terms of, you [50:11] know, because I I mean, I know from my [50:12] own experience that I can know every I [50:13] can know so much. I sit here with [50:15] experts all day every day. It's not like [50:16] I don't know this stuff. Yeah. [50:18] >> But then putting it into practice is a [50:20] different task. [50:21] >> Yeah. I mean, it's why you'll never hear [50:22] me use myself in my relationships as an [50:25] example because I think you can be, you [50:28] know, an incredibly skilled person at at [50:31] the theory of something and then in its [50:34] practical application, you have your own [50:35] unique challenges. I think that using [50:39] yourself as the example and your [50:41] relationships as an example is dangerous [50:44] because I I learned it in my own [50:45] professional life when I had a very [50:47] friendly divorce. And so my experience [50:50] of divorce is the unique function of the [50:53] constitution of my ex-wife and of me and [50:55] of our unique circumstances that brought [50:57] us where we are. So if I use that as the [50:59] basis for my analysis of things, I think [51:01] it's a very shallow sample size. I I [51:04] know for me [51:07] my greatest challenge in every [51:09] relationship I've ever had, but even in [51:12] my my professional relationships is [51:16] acknowledging when I need help. I I [51:19] think because I was raised in an [51:21] environment where a lot of my needs [51:24] weren't met. My father was a very [51:27] serious alcoholic. My mother was trying [51:29] to tend to a very serious alcoholic. [51:32] when I needed something even from a very [51:34] young age I I felt a lot of shame [51:37] because it wasn't met with you know I'm [51:39] hungry for breakfast like of course let [51:42] me make you some breakfast it was met [51:44] with what you can't make your own [51:45] breakfast what's wrong with you and I [51:48] [laughter] [51:49] it was this guy yeah that was me that [51:52] was me Bruce Lee poster and my was Chuck [51:56] Norris up there um yeah this is probably [51:58] like [52:00] nine nine years old Okinawa and Goju Ryu [52:03] karate. This is my room. Yeah, I was [52:05] very um very lonely. I was really [52:08] lonely. I was really sad. And [52:12] um I loved martial arts because there [52:16] was this [52:18] very clear kind of masculinity on [52:21] display, like this protective, strong [52:26] superpower that you could build. [52:29] >> It wasn't just gifted to you. like you [52:31] didn't win the genetic lottery. Like you [52:33] could through discipline and practice [52:37] you could have this superpower that [52:38] would make you feel safe and and that [52:41] was what I obsessed about having. [52:45] There's still a lot of that that person [52:49] that young man still in me that is [52:51] afraid to ask for help. I wanted to be [52:54] someone who I could do do it all for [52:56] myself. [52:58] And I I I wish I could say looking back [53:00] that it was because that was my natural [53:02] proclivity is to want to be very [53:03] self-actualized, but it really was that [53:05] I was just absolutely sad and terrified [53:08] that if I asked I'd be shamed if I said [53:11] like could you be nice to me that the [53:15] answer would be no. [53:18] So I learned how to do everything like I [53:24] cook amazingly well. like I'm good at a [53:27] lot of things. I'm good at most things. [53:29] Almost anything I put my mind to I'm [53:31] good at. But it took me a lot of years [53:34] to figure out that that although that [53:38] has served me really well and it's built [53:41] my career and the security and safety [53:44] that came with being so successful and [53:46] having financial success and you know [53:49] now some level of notoriety. [53:52] It took me a long time to figure out [53:53] that that also has been the greatest [53:55] obstacle in my life. And I it it I'm [53:58] learning at the age of 53 that this guy [54:03] is like he's still there and talking to [54:07] me all the time. And I've learned now [54:10] again through my own therapy to say to [54:12] him like, "Oh, I hear you. Like, I hear [54:16] you. I'm glad you're still there. Like, [54:18] you don't have to be so scared anymore. [54:24] I'm not [54:26] I'm grateful to him. [54:29] I think that's the best thing to aspire [54:30] to is to make peace with that. Like I'm [54:34] sure in you [54:37] there is some little boy [54:39] like hiding in some part of his room [54:43] feeling very lost and very lonely. And I [54:47] don't think there's anything wrong or [54:49] weak or not masculine or not strong [54:53] about acknowledging that that's still a [54:56] voice in your head. [54:58] And acknowledging that that voice in [55:00] your head, like it it brought you where [55:02] you are, but it also held you back in [55:05] some ways. And you're never going to get [55:07] rid of it. But maybe what you'll do is [55:10] hear it for what it is, which is is it's [55:12] a voice that was once there really [55:14] important to save you. and it did a [55:16] really good job of that. But that it's [55:19] okay. Like it's okay. You don't have to [55:21] beat that out of you, but you don't have [55:23] to listen to it either. You don't have [55:24] to let it drive the car. [55:26] >> I was thinking as you were speaking [55:27] about how those of us that Do you want [55:30] me to take this foot back? [55:32] >> Oh, but it's great. It's fun to see that [55:34] guy. I It's funny that you you pulled [55:36] that out. I have to tell you, I I It's a [55:39] lovely It's a lovely thing. [55:43] I think there's something to learn from [55:46] those versions of oursel. [55:48] Like if you hang out with kids, [55:52] you you just see like [55:54] >> they don't have all that hate in their [55:56] heart. They hate naps. It's the end of [55:58] the list. Like everything else like they [56:01] just want to like love each other and [56:03] hug each other and play. And when they [56:06] like think they hurt someone, they stop [56:08] and they're very scared cuz they didn't [56:09] mean to. And then we turn into these [56:12] creatures that are just attacking each [56:15] other all the time, you know? And I [56:17] think at the end of the day, like all we [56:18] want is that. Like all we want is to [56:20] just be like that warm, open version of [56:25] ourselves before the world beat the [ __ ] [56:26] out of us. And maybe that's what love's [56:29] supposed to be. Like maybe what love is [56:31] is an opportunity for us to like [56:34] reconnect to that part of ourselves that [56:36] was just so simple. Like I just want you [56:39] to love me. I want to be loved by you. I [56:41] want you to feel worthy of my love. I [56:43] want to feel worthy of yours. Like, why [56:46] does it have to be so hard? [56:49] So many of us are pursuing passive forms [56:52] of income and to build side businesses [56:53] in order to help us cover our bills. And [56:56] that opportunity is here with our [56:57] sponsor Stan, a business that I co-own. [57:00] It is the platform that can help you [57:02] take full advantage of your own [57:04] financial situation. Stan enables you to [57:06] work for yourself. It makes selling [57:08] digital products, courses, memberships, [57:10] and more simple products more scalable [57:12] and easier to do. You can turn your [57:14] ideas into income and get the support to [57:17] grow whatever you're building. And we've [57:18] just launched Dare to Dream. It's for [57:21] those who are ready to make the shift [57:22] from thinking to building, from planning [57:25] to actually doing the thing. It's about [57:27] seeing that dream in your head and [57:28] knowing exactly what it takes to bring [57:30] it to life. It's not too late to join [57:32] the challenge. Enter to win $100,000. [57:34] Visit daretodream.stand. [57:36] Stan.store. [57:39] There's a phase a lot of companies hit [57:40] where they're no longer doing the most [57:42] important thing, which is selling, and [57:43] they get really bogged down with admin. [57:45] And it's often something that creeps up [57:47] slowly, and you don't really notice [57:49] until it's happened. Slowly, momentum [57:51] starts to leak out. This happened to us, [57:53] and our sponsor, Pipe Drive, was a fix I [57:54] came across 10 years ago. And ever [57:56] since, my teams across my different [57:58] companies have continued to use it. Pipe [58:00] Drive is a simple but powerful sales CRM [58:02] that gives you the visibility on any [58:04] deals in your pipeline. It also [58:05] automates a lot of the tedious, [58:07] repetitive, and time-conuming parts of [58:09] the sales process, which in turn saves [58:11] you so many hours every single month, [58:12] which means you can get back to selling. [58:14] Making that early decision to switch to [58:15] Pipe Drive was a real gamecher, and it's [58:17] kept the right things front of mind. My [58:20] favorite feature is Pipe Drive's ability [58:21] to sync your CRM with multiple email [58:23] inboxes so your entire team can work [58:26] together from one platform. And we [58:27] aren't the only ones benefiting. Over [58:29] 100,000 companies use Pipe Drive to grow [58:31] their business. So, if something I've [58:33] said resonates, head over to [58:34] pipedive.com/ceeo [58:37] where you can get a 30-day free trial. [58:40] No credit card or payment required. [58:43] I was thinking about how um there's a [58:46] lot of people that at a very early age [58:48] had to be very independent for whatever [58:49] reason. Maybe a parent wasn't around. [58:51] Maybe in your case, you know, I've [58:52] heard, you know, doing this podcast, you [58:55] get a bit of pattern recognition where [58:56] you you sometimes think, oh, okay, so if [58:59] one of the parents was an alcoholic, [59:01] >> adult children of alcoholics were were I [59:03] remember reading the book recovery, [59:06] adult children of alcoholics, I stumbled [59:07] on it when I was in college in a [59:08] bookstore and I remember reading it and [59:11] going, have they been reading my diary? [59:14] Like what the holy because there was [59:15] this profile of like one of the types [59:18] one of the archetypes of adult children [59:21] of alcoholics is that you yeah control [59:23] control [59:25] like wanting to control everything [59:27] because life feels so chaotic when you [59:30] live with an alcoholic. When the person [59:31] who is supposed to be your primary [59:34] caregiver and the primary mechanism for [59:37] you to feel safe feels unpredictable and [59:40] chaotic and that is that creates in you [59:43] this constant sense of a heightened you [59:46] know heightened sense of I need to hold [59:48] on as tight as I can and also that drove [59:51] you to be incredibly independent. [59:53] >> Yeah. [59:55] Independence and connection seem to be [59:58] on like two ends of the spectrum. And I [60:00] say this in part because I look at [60:03] >> I look at all my friends that are very [60:04] very very independent and I would say [60:06] that they typically struggle the most to [60:08] form relationships because they've kind [60:10] of built their own [60:11] >> castle with a moat. [60:12] >> Yeah. [60:13] And generally if we zoom out on this [60:14] point of independence and dependency [60:16] >> I would say that the narrative in [60:18] society over the last I know 10 20 years [60:20] or whatever has been [60:22] >> pointed at glorifying independence and [60:25] not dependency. Dependency is like not [60:27] cool. It's like be your own boss start [60:28] your own business down on your own two [60:30] feet. [60:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. I so I used to view [60:34] I would say the defining characteristics [60:36] of my 30s and 40s [60:39] was the belief that there were two [60:42] versions of Jim Sexton. [60:45] One was the one that was the most [60:49] forward- facing at that time which was [60:51] lead pipe cruelty and mercenary [60:52] sensibility. Like I'm I'm I'm going to [60:54] do this job. I'm going to do it really [60:56] well. I'm going to get better and better [60:58] at it. I'm going to just take my skill [61:00] set and weaponize it and that's who I'm [61:03] going to be. And then there was this [61:05] other part of me that was always there. [61:06] I kind of stuffed it in the closet for a [61:09] while that like gets misty eyed when I [61:12] talk about love and cries when I think [61:14] about dogs and, you know, watches Love [61:17] on the Spectrum and can't make it [61:19] through an episode without weeping three [61:20] or four times. Like this very soft, [61:23] gentle, loving, compassionate, [61:25] empathetic, sensitive part of me. [61:28] >> [snorts] [61:28] >> And I felt like they were two waring [61:30] forces. [61:32] There were two versions of me. And the [61:35] question was, how can I beat that soft [61:37] little, you know, wuss out of me and be [61:42] the final form, which is like the me [61:45] that's a machine that can just do it [61:48] like that can just do what needs to be [61:50] done and do it in a way that nobody else [61:52] can do. And I'm very blessed that I am [61:54] in my line of work. what yoyo ma is in [61:58] cello like in a courtroom [62:01] I have a god-given talent and I remember [62:04] thinking okay that's the final form of [62:06] me is a master in the courtroom and and [62:10] everything else is just what do I need [62:12] to do to get there I remember my ex-wife [62:15] saying to me you know you will never [62:17] love any woman as much as you love the [62:20] law like every woman who you ever meet [62:24] for the rest of your life will be [62:25] playing second fiddle to how much you [62:27] love being in a courtroom. You're great [62:29] in a courtroom and you have no idea what [62:32] to do in your living room. Like in your [62:34] living room, you're just totally [62:38] paralyzed. Whereas in a courtroom, you [62:41] know every it has why it has defined [62:43] rules. It has a cadence. I know what the [62:46] goal is. Like I know exact it's [62:48] controlled chaos. I'm great at it. So [62:51] there was a part of me that went, okay, [62:55] there's this soft, warm, wonderful, [62:56] lovely, empathetic side of me, and then [62:59] there's this real successful, and that's [63:01] the one that got me everywhere. That's [63:03] the one that got me everything I have. [63:04] So I have to figure out how to get rid [63:06] of this one and keep this one. Like, [63:11] and for my entire 30s and most of my [63:13] 40s, that was my primary thing was [63:16] trying to figure out how to get rid of [63:17] that part of me. And no matter how [63:19] loudly I blared 9-in nails on on on on [63:22] my headphones and tried to become a [63:25] machine, I couldn't get rid of that part [63:28] of me. And then I came to realize, I [63:31] think in part because of this work. I [63:34] think because of like somehow I stumbled [63:36] into [63:38] being in a position where I end up [63:39] talking about feelings a whole lot. And [63:42] it's somehow I I I got brought in to [63:45] have go here's this interesting divorce [63:47] lawyer who's going to talk about divorce [63:48] stuff and somehow ended up talking a lot [63:50] about love and softness and warmth and [63:53] compassion. [63:54] >> I didn't think it somehow [63:56] >> Yeah. No, exactly. And what I came to [63:58] learn from that from from giving that [64:01] voice [64:02] is that there actually isn't two waring [64:04] forces. It's two very authentic aspects [64:07] of self that have to exist inside of me. [64:11] And each one of them creates the other [64:13] in some ways. Like I don't think I'd be [64:15] anywhere near as good of a lawyer and [64:17] courtroom advocate if I didn't have a [64:20] tremendous sensitivity and empathy and [64:23] couldn't put myself in the heads of the [64:24] various people in the room. So I think [64:27] that when we start to see what seems [64:29] like opposite traits in us instead as [64:32] authentic representations of aspects of [64:34] who we are that we have to learn how to [64:37] do let them dance, let them move [64:40] together in some way. And there's times [64:42] where this guy should take the lead. And [64:46] there's times where that very focused [64:48] self that you know is very [64:50] missiondriven, that person should lead. [64:53] And and for men in particular, like [64:55] we've been taught a rigidity. Like the [64:57] gender role for men has a tremendous [65:00] rigidity. I mean, I grew up in a time [65:02] where you either got to be Clint [65:03] Eastwood or Richard Simmons. Those were [65:05] your two choices. You either had to be, [65:08] you know, like icy 100% or you had to [65:12] be, you know, you could be warm and [65:13] fuzzy, but then you were just not really [65:14] masculine. And I just don't think that's [65:17] the case. Like you look at like I've [65:19] spent 20 years on the Brazilian [65:21] jiu-jitsu mat. I have to tell you like [65:23] there are some dudes could snap your [65:24] neck with like any with their thumb and [65:28] they're some of the warmest most lovely [65:30] people because these are all authentic [65:32] aspects of self. And to know that like [65:34] the soft warm version of me feeding it, [65:38] letting it spend some time letting it be [65:40] in conversation, it it makes me better [65:44] at the other part. It makes me more [65:46] authentic. It makes me better at that [65:48] part. And by the way, letting that part [65:51] out, it hasn't done anything to diminish [65:54] this part. So when you start to see it [65:56] that way, I I really think that there's [65:58] a tremendous [66:00] broader menu of possibilities out there. [66:04] I've got several friends in my life that [66:06] have really struggled with relationships [66:08] and love. And uh for all those people [66:11] that have really really struggled in [66:13] love and they look around at everybody [66:14] else and everybody else seems to have [66:17] worked it out or at least be working [66:19] through a situation but they look at [66:20] themselves and go, "It just doesn't work [66:22] for me. What's going on? Why am I the [66:23] only one in my friendship group that [66:25] hasn't found love or isn't in a [66:28] relationship?" And they kind of beat [66:30] themselves up about it. I think that's a [66:31] great starting point. Why is this [66:34] happening to me? and start looking at [66:38] when did it start happening and what's [66:40] the consistent thread through all of it [66:42] and are there people that I could ask [66:44] that question of who know me and love me [66:46] and would be willing to tell me honestly [66:48] and if there aren't great what are some [66:49] resources out there in terms of the [66:51] wisdom of other people that might share [66:53] that experience I think there's so many [66:56] entry points to that conversation with [66:58] yourself I think the start is to [67:01] identify that yeah I'm drowning like [67:03] what here's what the solution is not is [67:06] to pretend everything's fine. And that's [67:09] the ecosystem we've created. [67:12] We're we're living our gag reel and [67:14] watching everyone's greatest hits. And [67:16] we're encouraged all day long to tell [67:19] everyone how great we're doing and how [67:21] we're crushing it and how great we feel [67:24] and how focused we are. Because why? [67:25] Because we're terrified that if we said, [67:27] "I don't know. I feel like I'm drowning. [67:29] I feel like I'm drowning sometimes. I [67:31] have moments where I feel so put [67:32] together and then I have moments where I [67:34] think I'm drowning. And and by the way, [67:37] when people have that kind of honesty, [67:40] there's something so beautiful about it. [67:43] Like I have to tell you, like one of the [67:45] things that people say about me when I [67:48] go, I don't understand why anything I'm [67:50] saying resonates with anybody. People [67:51] are like, "Dude, you're so real. It's so [67:53] real. It's so blunt and honest and like [67:55] real." This is it's in every one of us [67:58] is that same realness, that same basic [68:01] just all it is is just saying out loud [68:04] like, "Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. [68:05] Like, I don't have it all figured out." [68:07] AND THAT'S OKAY CUZ I HAVE SOME THINGS [68:09] really figured out. So maybe if I've got [68:12] these things really figured out and [68:14] you've got these other things really [68:15] figured out and we're just stop [68:17] bullshitting each other for five minutes [68:20] and instead go, you know, I'm doing [68:22] great on this, but like this I feel like [68:24] I'm a train wreck on. Like every high [68:26] achieving friend I have, every celebrity [68:29] friend I have, every per I have friends [68:31] who people look at them and go, "Oh, [68:33] dude, he is murdering it." Like you're [68:36] my friend. People look at you, they go, [68:38] "He's murdering it." There are aspects [68:39] of your life that you're like, "I got to [68:41] work on that." There's tons of aspects [68:44] of my life where I go, I got to work on [68:45] that. Like I I figured all these other [68:47] things out, but I haven't figured that [68:49] out yet. And you know what? It's so [68:51] lovely to have that conversation. Like [68:55] why why can't we just make some space [68:57] for that all of us a little bit more? I [69:00] don't think it's that hard. [69:02] It's at least as important as our [69:04] workout routine. It's at least as [69:06] important as remembering someone's [69:07] birthday. [69:08] >> Yeah. I I I wonder why that I wonder why [69:10] it is that we um [clears throat] there's [69:13] so little space for us to work on our [69:16] connection challenges [69:18] these days. [69:18] >> It hasn't been prioritized. We become [69:20] what we behold. We prioritize what we've [69:23] been told to prioritize. We've been told [69:25] to prioritize conspicuous consumption. [69:28] >> We've been taught that the measure of a [69:30] person is is how much financial success [69:32] they have. That's why I genuinely [69:34] believe that if we continue to barrel [69:36] along [69:38] using this the metric of success being [69:43] financial above all else really [69:45] consumption, what we own, what we wear, [69:47] what we have or how we look, right? as [69:50] the priority, we're barreling towards [69:53] nothing. Whereas if we were to change [69:56] that and say, hey, like joy, peace, [69:59] finding some peace within ourselves, [70:02] finding some balance that feels right to [70:05] us individually. [70:07] >> I think that's a really good simple word [70:09] which people don't think about enough [70:10] when they're thinking about the KPIs of [70:12] success in their life, which is how do I [70:14] feel? And I think we've all grown up in [70:17] different contexts learning to tune out [70:18] of how I feel and in its place put how [70:22] does the world feel about me as like the [70:25] primary metric. And it's like I I was [70:27] thinking the other day that actually, [70:29] you know, we can go do all these [70:30] podcasts and books and whatever else, [70:31] but we were all born with this sort of [70:33] internal compass that tells you every [70:36] day how you feel, but like none of us [70:38] tune into it. [70:39] >> Yeah. Yeah. And actually the metric [70:40] becomes like how many followers do you [70:42] have? How rich are you? How [70:43] >> it's beaten out of us by the world. Like [70:46] I I I will tell you, you always get the [70:49] most emotional stuff out of me, Stephen. [70:51] I will tell you my most shameful moment [70:53] as a parent. [70:55] So I have two sons. They're 26 and 28. [70:58] 28-year-old just got married in [70:59] September. He's a lawyer. He's awesome. [71:03] He must have been five or six. [71:08] and something happened [71:10] like and he was he started crying like [71:13] someone hurt his feelings or something [71:15] happened but it wasn't I don't know it [71:18] wasn't that big of a deal like it it to [71:20] me at the moment I mean I was in my 20s [71:23] he was 24 when I I was 24 when he was [71:25] born so yeah I was in my 20s and he was [71:28] crying he was crying and like I wanted [71:30] him to stop crying because it made me [71:32] sad to see him cry like I love him so [71:35] much like that I was like it made me so [71:37] uncomfortable able to see him crying. [71:39] And I remember I like I like grabbed [71:42] him, not roughly, I grabbed him and I [71:44] just looked at him and I was like, [71:45] "Control yourself." I'm like, "Control [71:47] yourself." I'm like, "Calm down and [71:50] control yourself." [71:52] And I remember like he he managed to do [71:55] it. [71:58] It's 20some years later. Like, and I I'm [72:03] ashamed of that moment. [72:07] because I understand what I was trying [72:10] to say to him. Like I was trying to say [72:13] to him, I I don't want you to be in [72:14] pain. Like I'm uncomfortable with your [72:17] pain. I also wanted I wanted to say [72:20] something to this guy probably which is [72:22] like dude like the world's not going to [72:24] be nice to you if it knows that you have [72:26] all these feelings. Like you got to find [72:27] a way to hide it. There's so much going [72:29] on in that moment. But like I look back [72:32] on that moment and I just think like [72:35] no like that was the wrong thing to do. [72:38] Like it was the wrong thing to do. Like [72:40] I don't think we should be telling [72:43] people not just boys like boys [72:45] particularly maybe. But I don't think we [72:47] should be telling people like control [72:49] yourself. Like stop feeling so much. [72:52] Like I think I think [72:54] I think there's a difference between [72:57] trying to like get people to control [72:59] their feelings and not letting like [73:02] everything be governed by the transient [73:04] feelings that you have from moment to [73:06] moment. And I I think it's a harder more [73:09] subtle message. But like I think fe if [73:12] we lead with the feelings, if we lean [73:14] into the feelings first, if we identify [73:16] the feelings first, if we figure out [73:18] what it is we want to feel, we want the [73:20] other person to feel to bring it back to [73:22] marriage to bring it back to connection [73:24] that what were the questions I was [73:26] asking earlier that that exercise. When [73:29] did I make you feel loved this week? [73:32] Here's some things you did that made me [73:33] feel loved this week. Here's some things [73:36] that made me feel desire towards you [73:38] this week. Here's some things you did [73:39] this week that made me feel less than [73:42] loved by you or that made me feel less [73:44] connected to you. Like what? Maybe we [73:47] just need to help each other learn [73:51] how to identify our feelings and feel [73:53] our feelings. Like maybe we need more [73:55] Mr. Rogers and less, you know, intense [73:59] self-help. Like maybe we just need more [74:02] help not trying to control our feelings, [74:05] but just figure out what they are and [74:07] feel them. I think, you know, a lot of [74:08] us are distracting ourselves as a way to [74:10] avoid feeling anything because even I [74:12] was thinking about like a practical way [74:14] for you to get back in touch with [74:15] actually how you're feeling. Yeah. [74:17] >> And every solution I came up with was [74:19] like interrupted by doom. [74:20] >> Well, the best definition of addiction [74:21] I've ever heard was from a therapist [74:23] Dave Klugman [74:25] >> who said to me, um, addiction is [74:28] anything you do to get away from feeling [74:29] what you would would have felt if you'd [74:31] done nothing at all. And I've always [74:34] said to people, work is my favorite [74:35] narcotic. [74:36] Like if you look at the most productive [74:39] times in my life, they were almost [74:40] always when something awful was [74:42] happening in my personal life. Either I [74:44] was getting divorced, my mother was [74:45] dying, some some painful thing was [74:49] happening. So I took tremendous comfort [74:52] in feeling in control and competent, [74:54] which is how I feel at work. So the the [74:57] more I'm working is usually a gauge of [75:00] of where there are aspects of my life [75:03] that I don't want to feel certain [75:05] things. And again, that's why I think [75:06] that the the best question to ask at the [75:09] start of therapy, the only question [75:10] really, is what is it I'm afraid to [75:12] feel? [75:14] I think because we're closing off on [75:16] this section where we were talking about [75:18] people who have struggled in love, it is [75:20] probably worth just closing the section [75:22] by [75:24] giving them [75:26] a why as to [75:30] like the the reason why they should take [75:32] love seriously and stop distracting [75:35] themselves and stop avoiding it and stop [75:37] avoiding going to therapy, [75:39] >> brushing it under the carpet. [75:42] like what what is what is the why there? [75:44] Why should they take love seriously? [75:46] Because they could continue to, you [75:47] know, bomb on for the next 10, 20 years [75:49] and become [75:50] >> really professionally accomplished. [75:52] >> Mhm. [75:53] >> And, you know, get rich, nice house, [75:55] nice holidays. [75:57] >> Yeah. Those are all great things. Those [75:59] are all worthy pursuits. [76:04] I think when you look back on your life, [76:07] whatever stage of your life you're in, [76:10] most people [76:12] will recall a moment where they felt [76:14] loved or where they felt tremendous love [76:18] as the highest points of their life. [76:22] I I think even celebrity and I represent [76:25] a lot of celebrities and now like you [76:27] I've had a little taste of it. [76:31] That's really just the praise of [76:33] strangers. It's like the love of [76:35] strangers, which is lovely. It's lovely. [76:38] It's like neutrieet. It's sweet. It's [76:40] not sugar, but it's sweet. Like, feels [76:43] good to have strangers adore you. It's [76:46] lovely, you know? But is it the same as [76:49] having someone who genuinely knows you [76:52] and has a history of with you and really [76:55] loves you? Like I think all of us know [76:58] if we're honest that when we look back [77:01] on our life at the moments where we felt [77:03] the most glad that we're here, it was [77:07] usually [77:08] something that we felt that made us feel [77:10] loved or that we got to feel loved [77:13] towards someone else or or ideally a [77:15] combination of the two. So I think [77:17] romantic love is a great opportunity and [77:20] you don't have to be someone who's [77:23] religious and therefore believes that [77:25] marriage is a sacrament that you're [77:26] called to for the purpose of creating [77:28] children. You don't have to be someone [77:30] who believes that you know marriage is [77:34] good for society and therefore that's [77:36] why we have to do it is if you love [77:37] America or you love the UK you have to [77:39] do this for the country. It really can [77:42] just be to look inside your own [77:43] experience as a human being and look [77:45] inside your own feelings and say, "Okay, [77:47] when have I felt truly loved? When have [77:49] I felt love? And were those the highest [77:52] moments in my life? Were those the best [77:54] moments in my life?" A lot of those [77:55] other things that you just described [77:57] like holiday, it's usually not by [77:59] yourself. It's usually with other [78:01] people. It's usually with someone. Even [78:02] if it's transient love, it's some kind [78:05] of connection to another person. So the [78:07] the bigger question is is is the unique [78:10] form of love that that comes with a pair [78:14] bond, right? I you find one person and [78:18] you make that person your person. Like [78:22] is that the permutation that works for [78:25] you? And I think there are a lot of [78:29] people who try at that and fail. The [78:31] majority of people try at that and fail. [78:34] Is the solution to that to give up on [78:37] it? I don't think so. I think the [78:38] solution to it is to figure out when it [78:41] works because when it works, it it's so [78:43] good, right? Talk to anybody who's [78:45] really had a great successful long-term [78:47] relationship. Again, even if it [78:50] eventually ends, even if you know, [78:52] happily ever after means happily ever [78:53] after separately. If you had 10, 20 [78:55] years of your life where you felt deep, [78:58] wonderful intimate connection with [78:59] another person and great sexual [79:01] satisfaction and all kinds of other [79:02] things like you know at best right like [79:06] you're you're getting married okay and [79:09] if you have a monogous marriage I would [79:12] like to think that [79:16] you will sleep with as many women as you [79:18] want to which will be one [79:22] and she will sleep with as many men as [79:24] she wants to, which will be one. Cuz [79:27] when I'm full, [79:29] I'm not hungry. I don't need more to [79:31] eat. Like when I'm satisfied, I don't [79:35] need more. Like if if the goal of a [79:38] monogous marriage, if the goal of a [79:40] traditional marriage is that we're going [79:42] to say to each other, "Hey, you and I, [79:46] we're going to share space. We're going [79:47] to share a journey together. We're going [79:48] to play a very important role in each [79:50] other's lives. We're going to add to [79:53] that. there's this romantic and sexual [79:54] component which makes it something other [79:56] than a friendship and most marriages [79:59] you're saying we're going to only share [80:01] that aspect of self with each other. [80:04] Okay. So if that's what you want and [80:08] what comes from that is you know [80:12] something you want to feel and that is I [80:15] want to feel deeply connected. I want to [80:17] feel a connection that gets deeper and [80:18] deeper. I want to feel safe in this [80:20] relationship. Emotionally, physically, I [80:23] want to feel safe in it. Like, I just [80:26] think that there's tremendous value in [80:28] saying that out loud to each other from [80:31] the beginning and saying to each other, [80:34] what can we do to to if we both have [80:37] decided this is something we're going to [80:39] do, we don't have to do it, but we're [80:40] going to do it. How can we keep this [80:44] thing lovely and connected? And I I [80:47] think the answer really is not that [80:49] complicated. [80:49] >> Do you think prenups help marriages [80:52] last? [80:53] >> Yes. [80:53] >> You're saying that as a divorce lawyer [80:55] who gets paid to write them? [80:56] >> No. Because it's the least profitable [80:57] thing we do. [80:58] >> Oh, okay. [80:59] >> Yeah. Prenups are so easy. Like they're, [81:01] you know, they're really like to the [81:03] point now where they're essentially [81:04] automated. Like I see a future where AI [81:06] is just going to do them. Like it's [81:07] really not that tricky. [81:08] >> Do you think I should get a prenup? [81:10] >> Yes, of course. [81:11] >> Why do you think I should get a prenup? [81:12] >> You have a prenup? It'll either be [81:14] written by the state legislature or [81:15] it'll be written by you and she. Who do [81:17] you trust more? You've been to the DMV. [81:20] Have you walked into the DMV and went, [81:21] "Oh, these people are great. They should [81:22] be in charge of everything." I mean, you [81:24] know what? They should make the rules [81:25] for our marriage. And by the way, even [81:27] though this legislature changes [81:29] constantly, like whoever you are, [81:31] whatever your political views are, in [81:33] the last 20 years, at some point you've [81:35] gone, I cannot believe who's in charge [81:37] here. I cannot believe who's in charge [81:39] of the government. Whatever side of the [81:41] aisle you're on. So what you're saying [81:43] cuz your marriage has a prenup. You get [81:46] married, you've got a prenup. You're [81:48] saying I trust the legislature of the [81:50] state in which we will be residing in [81:52] the future in the event we break up more [81:55] than I trust my partner who I've chosen [81:58] out of 8 billion options. [81:59] >> I imagine a lot of people listening [82:01] would [82:02] be scared to mention a prenup to their [82:05] partner. [82:06] >> And those people in particular, by the [82:08] way, it's just like I said about, you [82:09] know, I don't have 15 minutes a day to [82:11] meditate. Great. that you need an hour. [82:13] If you'd be scared to mention a prenup [82:15] to your partner, then then you should [82:18] definitely mention a prenup to your [82:20] partner because what that means is I'm [82:22] afraid to have a hard conversation with [82:23] my partner. And if you're going to get [82:26] married, you should get accustomed to [82:29] having hard conversations. Life is going [82:31] to come at you very fast. And there's [82:32] going to be lots of things that happen [82:34] that require hard conversations. [82:36] >> What if my partner says no? [82:38] >> Says no to the prenup. [82:39] >> Yeah. [82:40] have a conversation about why [82:42] >> and they say you don't trust me like you [82:44] think I'm going to take your stuff. This [82:45] is not very sexy. This is [82:47] >> well arguably you don't trust me [82:49] equally, right? Because that trust works [82:51] both ways. So what what what you're [82:53] saying when you say you don't trust me [82:56] is you're saying that you don't trust [82:58] that this marriage is going to last or [83:02] you don't trust you're saying you don't [83:04] trust that in the event this marriage [83:06] ends we won't be fair to each other. [83:09] Right? So, why would you marry someone [83:11] who you don't believe that they're going [83:13] to be fair to you? What you're you're [83:16] not protecting yourselves against each [83:18] other. You're protecting yourselves [83:20] against the government making the rule [83:23] set in the event that that your marriage [83:25] ends in something other than death. [83:27] >> You know, I've got a friend um there's [83:29] two people that convinced me that I [83:30] should get a prenup. [83:32] >> One of them was you. [83:33] >> Thanks. Um, and then the other was [83:36] watching a friend go through divorce and [83:37] he said to me actually when we we went [83:40] for dinner one time that it was it was [83:42] it was looking at his face and seeing [83:46] the like depression in his face from the [83:48] process because not only had it ruined [83:51] his relationship with his ex-wife [83:53] because they've gone through this [83:54] onslaught for seven years where two sets [83:56] of lawyers were fighting either side. He [83:57] said that he had paid for the lawyer her [83:59] lawyers [84:00] >> which he has to do which I I wasn't [84:02] >> Yeah. There's a presumption that the [84:03] higher earning individual should be [84:06] responsible for the legal reasonable [84:08] legal fees of the the less uh earning [84:12] spouse. [84:12] >> He said her lawyer has now got like a [84:15] skyscraper whereas when this divorce [84:17] started he was in a small little office. [84:18] Now he's got like some massive building [84:20] because he's had to spend tens of [84:21] millions on her lawyers. [84:23] >> And [84:24] >> yeah, I've had clients who paid [84:25] millions. The other thing he said was [84:26] that he has [84:30] her lawyer is trying to inflate his [84:33] assets [84:35] >> to tell the judge that his business is [84:38] worth [84:39] >> billions of dollars when now I know why [84:41] this divorce is taking so long. They [84:42] have dueling experts. So instead of of [84:45] the two lawyers hiring neutral a neutral [84:47] expert to value his business interests, [84:50] what they've elected to do instead is to [84:53] hire individual partisan experts. And [84:56] that happens sometimes. And when you [84:58] hire an individual partisan expert, of [85:00] course you're going to, you know, if you [85:02] represent the party who wants half of [85:04] this thing, you're going to find [85:06] someone. You can, the cigarette [85:07] companies had doctors who were willing [85:09] to testify that cigarettes are good for [85:11] you. Like you can find an expert to say [85:14] almost anything if you pay them enough. [85:16] So you find credible experts that will [85:18] overly value the business and then [85:20] because value is speculative and then [85:22] the other side has an incentive to hire [85:24] experts who will deliberately diminish [85:26] the value of the business and then you [85:28] have two opportunities. One is you can [85:30] play with the data set and you can [85:32] impeach the data set and then the other [85:34] is you can impeach the conclusion that [85:36] came from the data set. So you can say [85:37] you used the wrong data and that's how [85:39] you got to the wrong conclusion. Or you [85:40] can say you use the right data but you [85:42] came to the wrong conclusion or some [85:43] combination of both. Like this is the [85:44] [ __ ] I get to do all day in a courtroom [85:47] is to like try to engineer those optics [85:49] or prevent those optics from being [85:51] engineered in that direction. [85:53] >> And say that I was going through a [85:55] divorce now with my partner. Mhm. [85:57] >> My wife would well her lawyer would [86:01] theoretically be trying to say that this [86:03] podcast is worth a billion dollars [86:05] because then theoretically [86:07] >> she's entitled to a larger percentage. [86:08] Yeah. [86:09] >> She might be entitled to 500 million. [86:11] And if the judge believes that this [86:12] podcast is worth a billion, I need to [86:13] find a way to pay her 500 million. [86:15] >> Yeah. [86:16] >> Even if I don't have it, [86:17] >> it can be paid over time. It's what's [86:18] called a distributive award. It can be [86:20] paid over an extended period of time. [86:21] That's [86:22] >> and my lawyer is going to be trying to [86:23] argue that this is worth nothing. [86:24] >> Nothing. It's absolutely effortless. [86:25] It's worth nothing. You should have [86:26] negative contingency discounts, a key [86:28] man discount. It's a lack of discount [86:30] for marketability. There's Yeah, this is [86:31] all I do all day. This is the gig. And [86:34] and see, you know why you want a prenup [86:37] is cuz God forbid for both of you that [86:41] that happens. Like you're you're going [86:45] to pay me. I get a thousand dollars an [86:48] hour to help people navigate that kind [86:52] of chaos or to create that kind of chaos [86:56] as a weapon against a person or to just [86:59] threaten that [clears throat] kind of [87:01] chaos. [87:02] >> Doesn't that mean it's your in your [87:03] interest to stretch to amplify conflict [87:07] and stretch it out and protract it? And [87:09] by the way, I manipulate people's [87:11] emotional state for a living. I said [87:13] that earlier. You don't think I could [87:14] use my powers for evil to get my client [87:17] terrified and worried that forces are [87:19] aligning against him? By the way, that's [87:21] how good lawyers get their reputation as [87:24] being good lawyers because sometimes we [87:26] have a client where we could potentially [87:28] make millions of dollars and we settle [87:30] the case within like $10,000 worth of [87:33] fee. Like I have a case right now where [87:36] my opposing council is I I would [87:38] consider the only lawyer in New York [87:39] City better than me. like he's sort of [87:42] like an idol to me in the sense that [87:43] he's such a good trial lawyer and he's [87:46] my adversary on this case and it's not [87:48] the first case we've had against each [87:49] other and we are like when the two of us [87:50] go in a courtroom it's like T-Rexes [87:52] fighting [87:54] we're going to settle this case in like [87:55] two phone calls because we both are just [87:58] not the kind of people that are going to [88:00] unnecessarily amplify conflict. We we we [88:03] have our reputation because we don't do [88:06] that. Like the best of us, that's how [88:09] you earn the reputation. The people that [88:11] do that amplifying of conflict, word [88:14] gets out. Word gets out. And that's this [88:16] is a business where you live and die by [88:18] your reputation. [88:20] Make sure you keep what I'm about to say [88:21] to yourself. I'm inviting 10,000 of you [88:24] to come even deeper into the diary of a [88:26] CEO. Welcome to my inner circle. This is [88:29] a brand new private community that I'm [88:31] launching to the world. We have so many [88:33] incredible things that happen that you [88:34] are never shown. We have the briefs that [88:37] are on my iPad when I'm recording the [88:38] conversation. We have clips we've never [88:40] released. We have behindthe-scenes [88:42] conversations with the guests and also [88:44] the episodes that we've never ever [88:46] released. And so much more. In the [88:49] circle, you'll have direct access to me. [88:51] You can tell us what you want this show [88:52] to be, who you want us to interview, and [88:54] the types of conversations you would [88:56] love us to have. But remember, for now, [88:58] we're only inviting the first 10,000 [89:00] people that join before it closes. So, [89:03] if you want to join our private closed [89:04] community, head to the link in the [89:05] description below or go to [89:06] daccircle.com. [89:10] I will speak to you there. [89:13] So, I have [89:15] some M&M's here or something. [89:17] >> You love M&M's. [89:18] >> Um, explain to me. So, this is actually [89:22] a great illustration of what a prenup [89:24] should be. Okay. All a prenup is a [89:26] prenup is not a referendum on the [89:28] likelihood of us breaking up. A prenup [89:31] is not a commentary on how much we trust [89:33] each other. A prenup is not um you know [89:37] an opportunity to screw the person [89:39] you're about to join lives with. Okay? A [89:43] prenup is a rule set. It's creating [89:46] tranches. Okay? So you have some things. [89:50] She has some things right now. You don't [89:52] owe her anything. She doesn't owe you [89:54] anything. Yours is yours. Hers is hers. [89:57] You're in the title system. [89:59] >> Can we talk about if we're just dating? [90:02] >> So, if we're dating, I heard that [90:04] there's some laws where if you date [90:05] someone long enough, eventually they can [90:08] basically argue that they own your [90:09] stuff. [90:10] >> Yeah. So, that's called what used to be [90:11] called common law marriage or it makes [90:14] you responsible for what we used to call [90:15] palimony, which is like alimony for a [90:17] friend. Palimony. Okay. Um, most [90:20] jurisdictions no longer honor that. It [90:22] doesn't exist. It was largely a function [90:24] of the absence of marriage equality. So [90:26] once marriage equality occurred, once [90:28] gay and lesbian individuals could marry, [90:31] the court system essentially started [90:33] saying there's no such thing as a quasi [90:35] marital relationship anymore. If you are [90:38] married, you're married. If you're not, [90:40] you're not. So if you decide to live [90:43] together and you don't have a marriage, [90:45] then you can't have a quasi marital [90:47] relationship anymore. Now that marriage [90:49] equality is the law of the land and [90:51] everyone who wants to get married is [90:53] allowed to get married. You can't say [90:55] well we were kind of like married but we [90:57] weren't married. Like you're either [90:59] married or you're not married. Those are [91:01] the two tranches. So that situation [91:04] you're in the title system. Yours is [91:06] yours, hers is hers. There is no we [91:08] except for the voluntary we. [91:10] >> Okay. So now using coming back to this [91:13] example of these M&M's and prenups. So, [91:15] here's what marriage is. Simply put, [91:19] there's you, there's me, and this is we. [91:22] This is the bucket of we. Okay? When we [91:26] get married, we're going to take you. [91:35] I didn't put it all. See, I didn't put [91:37] it all. Okay? I'm keeping this separate. [91:41] That's called separate property. Okay? [91:43] In California, this is called community [91:44] property. This is anything I acquire [91:46] during the marriage. Okay, this is [91:48] separate property. If I keep it [91:50] separate, it stays separate. Okay, it [91:54] stays separate. Keep that thought. This [91:56] is her. Okay, [92:04] she's put some of hers in there, too. [92:07] May not be exactly the same, but it's [92:08] pretty close to it. And by the way, we [92:10] just got married. It's pretty obvious to [92:11] see which one's which, right? Okay. So, [92:14] so this is any marriage really with or [92:17] without a prenup. Okay. This is what [92:19] marriage looks like. There's you and [92:21] there's me and there's we. We're [92:22] combining. And by the way, this isn't [92:23] just for assets and liabilities. This is [92:25] like the nature of our stuff, our [92:26] furniture, the things we bring to the [92:28] relationship. You could even argue it's [92:29] like what we watch on TV, right? It's [92:31] you, me, we, and we combine the two. [92:33] Okay. Now, you and I both know this is [92:36] actually what it starts to look like. It [92:37] never stays just me, does it? it always [92:39] starts to get kind of mixed up together. [92:41] In the law, we call that co-mingling. [92:43] Okay. Now, here's what's interesting [92:47] with a prenup. This stays this simple [92:52] because anything you put in this bucket [92:55] is marital. And that could be stuff I [92:58] bought for the house. It could be a [92:59] joint bank account. Could [93:00] >> be anything. [93:01] >> Okay? All we're doing when we have a [93:03] prenup is yours, mine, ours, and we're [93:08] defining that. So maybe I want you to [93:12] feel I'm very invested in this [93:14] relationship. So I throw some more in. [93:16] Hey babe, I just got a bonus at work. [93:17] I'm throwing it into the Wii. I'm [93:19] keeping a little over here. I'm keeping [93:21] a little over here. [93:22] >> Wait, can you do that after the [93:24] marriage? [93:25] >> With a prenup? Yeah. [93:26] >> So you can add to a prenup? The prenup, [93:28] what you're saying is if it's in my [93:30] name, it's mine. Asset or liability. If [93:32] it's in your name, it's yours. Asset or [93:34] liability. If it's in our joint names, [93:36] we divide it 50/50 or how we agree in [93:38] writing. But we create three separate [93:41] buckets. Yours, mine, and ours. Okay? Do [93:44] you know what happens in the state of [93:46] California after seven years or in the [93:49] state of New York if you co-ingle assets [93:53] in any way? [93:55] This is solely things in your name. This [93:57] is solely things in her name. Things you [93:59] owned before marriage. This is the you [94:01] and the me before you got married. [94:08] >> It's community property now. All of it. [94:10] >> Everything. [94:10] >> All of it. Every bit of it. You didn't [94:12] have a prenup. Everything that's in it. [94:15] Everything in here is is subject to [94:19] division. Everything that's in here is [94:21] subject to identification, valuation, [94:24] and division. And think about think [94:28] about [94:29] sorting that out. [94:31] >> And also going back to my friend, some [94:33] of the value of these assets is up for [94:36] debate. [94:37] >> Sure. Sure. Not only is the value [94:39] because look, some of these are cracked [94:40] and some of them aren't. And did they [94:42] crack in this process or were they [94:43] cracked before? Did she crack them or [94:45] did you crack them? And which ones are [94:46] worth more than the others? And were [94:48] these the same at the be? It doesn't [94:49] matter. It's all in. And by the way, [94:51] take take out the marital take out your [94:54] property. Now, how long is that going to [94:55] take you? It's impossible to do the once [94:58] you're in the community property system, [95:00] once you've put something into the Wii [95:02] category, if you get married without a [95:04] prenup, you can unintentionally [95:08] buy into this into this system, which by [95:11] the way, I make a very comfortable [95:14] living helping people sort this out. [95:17] Whereas [95:19] whereas [95:21] all you had to do was agree on the rule [95:24] set of yours, mine, ours, and then this [95:27] is intentional. Now, I understand why [95:30] that's scary for some people because you [95:32] have to have a conversation about, well, [95:34] are we putting that in joint names? Or, [95:36] well, you got that bonus. Are you [95:38] putting it in my account or your account [95:40] or some in your account and some in my [95:42] account or some in this? But isn't it [95:44] better to keep some level of control [95:47] over this? [95:48] >> If I was a financially motivated [95:52] individual and I was marrying say you [95:54] and you were a billionaire, [95:56] >> I mean it's very much in my interest to [95:58] avoid this prenup [96:00] >> maybe. Yeah. [96:01] >> Because then, you know, it's all going [96:02] to become we in seven years time. So [96:04] I've just got to be with you for seven [96:05] years and then I can bounce out of this [96:06] and I'm going to make half a billion [96:08] dollars. Have you ever seen that? [96:10] >> Of course. [96:10] >> Have you ever seen? [96:11] >> Of course I have. But here's also what I [96:12] will say to you. Flip that story for a [96:15] second. So we're married for 6 and 1/2 [96:18] years. It's going pretty well. [96:22] We're at the 6 and 1/2 year mark. [96:25] You're you're a billionaire. You're [96:27] probably not stupid, right? Are you [96:30] going to take that bet? [96:31] >> Is it seven years is the moment when [96:33] >> is the moment [96:34] >> when it all becomes [96:35] >> community property? Yeah. [96:36] >> So do you find some very successful [96:38] people? spike the divorce rate at six [96:40] years, six and a half years because why? [96:42] It's the same reason why I tell people [96:44] don't put don't put what we call you [96:46] know sunset clauses in a prenup because [96:49] people people all have the bright idea [96:50] that they're going to oh well we'll do a [96:52] prenup but after 10 years it'll go away [96:55] after 10 years you know it'll [96:57] self-destruct like in Mission Impossible [97:00] and all that does is makes people ask [97:02] really icky questions at the n and a [97:04] half year mark where they have to start [97:06] going because seven years seven years [97:08] it's like the honeymoon's over maybe you [97:10] got a kid or two and all of a sudden you [97:11] go, okay, do I want fully one half of [97:15] everything I owned prior to the marriage [97:17] to now be subject to division? Is it [97:19] going that good? Do I want to take this [97:21] bet? Like, look, we live in reality. [97:24] What you're doing when you marry someone [97:26] is you're marrying your destiny to them [97:28] and you're making decisions about a [97:30] future that you can't see. It hasn't [97:32] happened yet. If seven years is the [97:34] moment when our assets become co-mingled [97:38] to the point that community property [97:40] where we have to kind of split our [97:42] assets in a relationship, have you ever [97:44] seen someone get to like seven years in [97:46] one day and then file for divorce [97:48] because they're going to get [97:49] >> Yeah, I've had people who wait until the [97:50] exact moment. Like there's other there's [97:53] other formulas that are applicable. Like [97:55] I I have plenty of people right now that [97:56] have come to me for a consultation and [97:58] they're like, "Yeah, I'm not going to [97:59] file for another 6 months because we'll [98:00] hit 20 years in 6 months." And when we [98:02] hit that, it kicks up to another level [98:04] of alimony in terms of the formulas. [98:06] Like here's the thing. When the [98:07] government makes decisions for you, they [98:10] set numbers. Like there's a highway near [98:14] where we are right now. It's 55 miles an [98:17] hour is an acceptable legal speed to [98:20] drive on that. 56 and you're committing [98:22] a crime. 76 and you're committing a [98:25] different level of crime. 106 and you're [98:27] committing a higher level felony crime. [98:29] Right? Is 56 and 55 that much different? [98:33] No. We had to pick a number. So, we [98:34] picked that number. So, do you trust the [98:38] government to pick the number? That's [98:41] the only question to ask when you're [98:42] thinking about a prenup is, do I trust [98:44] the government so much that I'm going to [98:45] let them pick the number? Personally, I [98:48] don't. Personally, if I like someone so [98:51] much that I've decided I'm going to [98:52] choose them out of 8 billion other [98:54] options, I would think I have enough [98:56] faith in that person to come up with a [98:58] rule set between us that we and BY THE [99:00] WAY, NOT A COMPLICATED rule set. If it's [99:02] in my name, it's mine. If it's in your [99:03] name, it's yours. If it's in our name, [99:05] it's ours. Then you can have all the [99:07] conversations you want about why aren't [99:08] you putting things in joint names or why [99:10] are you putting things in joint names? [99:11] And here's what I need to feel safe. Cuz [99:13] here's the thing. If you're the [99:14] billionaire or you're the person [99:15] marrying the billionaire, you both want [99:18] to feel. Remember, we're going back to [99:19] what is it you want to feel? What is it [99:20] you want to feel? That's the key [99:21] question. You What do you want to feel? [99:24] You both want to feel safe. Isn't that [99:26] fair? I've represented a lot of victims [99:27] of intimate partner abuse and domestic [99:29] violence and coercive control. And I can [99:31] tell you, you can't feel loved if you [99:33] don't feel safe. And there's lots of [99:35] ways for a person to feel unsafe [99:37] physically, emotionally, financially. [99:40] There's lots of ways to make someone I [99:42] hope you want to make your fiance feel [99:45] safe and I hope she wants to make you [99:47] feel safe. So, one of the ways that you [99:49] make her feel safe. By the way, you [99:51] can't protect her from everything in the [99:53] world. You know that, right? Like [99:54] somebody drops a nuke, there's nothing [99:55] you're going to be able to do to help [99:56] her with that. Okay? There's lots of [99:58] things that can happen that you can't [100:00] keep her safe from, but you're going to [100:01] do your darnest. And that's great. Okay? [100:04] And by the way, like she wants you to [100:06] feel safe. She wants you to feel safe [100:08] and not taken advantage of and loved for [100:11] who you are. Right? I I have every [100:12] confidence she does not love you just [100:14] for money. There's lots of people with [100:15] money in the world. So, she loves the [100:17] unique combination of things that are [100:19] you. One factor of which may be that [100:21] you're a very successful man [100:22] professionally and that makes her feel [100:24] safe and that makes her feel secure and [100:26] it makes her feel like she can really [100:27] have a future with you that's a bright [100:29] and lovely one and she can focus her [100:30] energies on things other than find. [100:32] That's great. THIS IS GREAT, MAN. WE'RE [100:34] BOTH HAPPY. WE'RE DOING the thing. So, [100:37] what is wrong with just keeping this [100:40] conversation an ongoing conversation [100:43] about what is it we need to feel safe? [100:45] Because if you are in that dynamic where [100:48] she's gorgeous and he's rich, if she [100:51] says to him, hey, if we split up, I'm [100:54] going to like need some things like I [100:56] I'm not really focusing on finances and [100:58] you have so much more than me. You're [101:00] telling me the guy's not going to say, [101:02] "Yeah, that makes sense." And by the [101:03] way, when's the time to have that [101:05] conversation? WHEN YOU'RE MADLY IN LOVE [101:07] WITH EACH other in the beginning of this [101:08] thing when you're on your knee in front [101:10] of the restaurant, you know, proposing [101:11] to THE PERSON. YOU DON'T HAVE IT when [101:13] you're breaking up. That's the worst [101:15] time to have that conversation. Have it [101:17] when you're first having that abundance [101:19] of optimism and connection to each [101:21] other. And then and then, by the way, [101:23] what does he feel unsafe? He feels [101:25] unsafe that he's saying, "Look, I'm [101:27] willing to contribute financially to [101:29] this relationship. Clearly, I've proven [101:30] that. I bought you a Birkin bag. I [101:32] bought you a car. I pay for your bills. [101:34] I'm signing on to marry you and to give [101:36] you a wonderful, beautiful life. Are you [101:38] entitled to 100% or 50% of everything [101:42] I've ever owned? I have so much more [101:44] than you right now. Like that seems [101:46] wildly. Do you Are you saying that [101:48] everything I earn from the date of [101:50] marriage on we should split? Like that's [101:52] what's great about a prenup. You can [101:54] make whatever rules you want to in that [101:57] situation. So, I I believe there is [102:00] genuine value in having honest [102:02] conversations about these things. Look, [102:05] I It's just M&M's. It's just money at [102:09] the end of the day. And by the way, this [102:11] has no more real value than the pieces [102:13] of paper you're holding in your pocket [102:15] that we've attributed value to. If [102:16] anything, this tastes good. Chew on [102:18] money all you want. It won't help. I did [102:20] have this conversation with my partner [102:22] and we we talked about it and she was [102:23] very um she was very supportive of a [102:26] prenup because she also wants one and [102:27] she wants to protect her assets and the [102:29] business that she's built and all those [102:31] kinds of things which was useful but [102:33] also I acknowledged you know that I'm I [102:36] earn more money so in the event that we [102:38] have a big family in the future we have [102:40] four five kids [102:42] >> you I think I need to contribute more to [102:44] make sure that she's fine in the [102:46] >> I'm not of course but but see this is [102:48] the point you're a reasonable able [102:50] person if your response when she said [102:53] well you know I we may want to have a [102:54] family and you know if we do like you [102:56] have so much more than me and although [102:58] I'm signing off to protect your assets [103:00] like you know the pursuits I I am really [103:03] concentrating my day on are not purely [103:05] financial they're more for the good of [103:06] the world or for the good of individuals [103:08] I'm I'm a helper I'm a person who wants [103:10] to to to to make the world a better [103:12] place you know I know a little bit about [103:13] her that I know that these are these are [103:15] her goals her goal is not to be I want [103:17] to be the CEO of everything her goals is [103:20] to help the world and to help people. [103:21] That's beautiful. That's probably one of [103:23] the reasons why you love her so much. [103:26] And so, isn't that a conversation the [103:29] two of you should have now and say, [103:30] "Well, of course." And by the way, if we [103:32] have kids, I'm going to need different [103:34] things. What's great about a prenup is [103:36] you can make one that says, "If we don't [103:37] have kids, it's this. If we have kids, [103:39] it's this." Like, there's protections [103:41] you can put in that make sense to both [103:43] of you. [103:43] >> What about pets? I've heard about this [103:46] petnup. [103:46] >> Petnup? Yeah. [103:47] >> What's a petnup? Do people actually [103:50] >> Yeah. Yeah. Pet a petnup is I actually [103:52] created the site trusted petnup.com and [103:55] uh it's free. It's 100% free. It's uh if [103:58] you it's a pay as you wish. So if you [104:00] want to to pay anything towards it, 100% [104:03] of it goes to animal shelters basically [104:05] to to 501c3 animal shelters. But [104:08] essentially what we have found is [104:11] happening more in the legal system right [104:12] now is the equivalent of custody cases [104:14] but for companion animals. So people [104:16] have a dog, people have a cat, people [104:18] have a bird, people have any combination [104:20] of animals. We feel deeply emotionally [104:22] invested in our pets. Um the law for [104:25] many years looked at pets as what was [104:27] called cattle. Cattle is property. And [104:30] property is essentially like if you [104:32] killed someone's dog, you owed them the [104:35] replacement value of the dog. [104:37] >> What do you tend to see from a legal [104:39] perspective here? Is it that at one [104:42] point they bought a pet together, they [104:44] never really clarified who owns the pet. [104:46] They go through a divorce. They're both [104:47] arguing over the pet. [104:48] >> That happened a lot. Yeah, that was the [104:49] most common permutation. Sometimes it [104:52] was they got a pet together while they [104:53] were dating [104:54] >> and one of them was living, you know, in [104:57] their own apartment or whatever and the [104:59] dog or cat was living with them and then [105:00] they merged their homes and now they [105:02] both grow deeply attached to this animal [105:05] and you know they've spent 5 years or 10 [105:07] years together with this animal and now [105:08] they both like a child. They both have [105:10] this like a stepchild is very similar [105:13] like it's not my blood child but it's [105:15] you know someone who I've spent a long [105:16] time with and been part of their care [105:18] and I mean something to them. [105:20] >> What's the legal what's what is the [105:22] >> Well, for many many years pets were [105:24] considered chatt. They were considered [105:25] property. So, you know, I I remember a [105:28] case in New York County where the [105:30] parties could not agree on what to do [105:32] with the dog, like who would keep the [105:34] dog and the judge said, "Okay, I'm [105:35] ordering the dog to be sold and the [105:36] proceeds divided." And of course, the [105:39] people then went outside and figured, it [105:40] was very Solomonike. The people went [105:42] outside and figured out a visitation [105:43] schedule for the dog. But what we're [105:45] just saying is just like anything in a [105:47] prenup, do this in advance. Just do this [105:49] in advance. You have a pet, have a [105:51] petup. Even if you're not getting [105:52] married, if you're cohabitating or [105:53] you're dating someone, have a contract [105:55] that says, "We both [snorts] care about [105:57] this animal. We've adopted this animal [106:00] or we purchased this animal or we [106:02] brought this animal into our lives. And [106:04] now in the event that the our [106:06] relationship ends, here's what the rules [106:09] will be. We will jointly make important [106:12] medical decisions and be guided by the [106:14] veterinarian's you know perspective. Um [106:16] if if either of us ever is going to give [106:18] up the animal for adoption, the other [106:20] person will have the automatic right to [106:22] adopt the animal. If the time eventually [106:25] comes where there has been a [106:26] recommendation of euthanasia by we will [106:28] both be entitled to be there when we say [106:31] goodbye to that dog or we'll both be [106:32] entitled to jointly agree on where that [106:35] animal's ashes will be or where they'll [106:37] be buried or we'll each be entitled to [106:39] one half of the ashes or we'll have a [106:41] visitation schedule for the dog in the [106:43] event that we separate. That's what a [106:45] petnup is. A petup is a contract between [106:48] two people. Look, just like kids, [106:51] pets didn't ask for this. Pets didn't [106:54] ask for you guys to break up. It's not [106:56] their fault. Like, I don't know anybody [106:58] that ever broke up because of the dog or [106:59] the cat. I'm sure there's somebody out [107:01] there, but that's not what it's about. [107:03] So, it is very, very useful to have in [107:06] advance a rule set. I like rules in [107:08] advance. I like to know the rules of the [107:10] game that we're playing because we can [107:12] adjust our behavior accordingly. [107:13] >> Is um divorce increasing statistically? [107:17] So it's the most recent statistic is the [107:20] divorce rate is slowly going up. It was [107:22] low. It had it had gone down. It went [107:25] down during the pandemic. Part of that [107:28] was a function of access to the court [107:30] system. When again when you're looking [107:33] at the divorce rate, the divorce rate is [107:34] calculated based on the filing of what's [107:37] called certificate of dissolution of [107:39] marriage, which is the final document [107:40] that's filed with the state by the court [107:43] system when a divorce has been [107:45] finalized. So all you're really seeing [107:46] there is what marriages catastrophically [107:48] failed and and there was a judgment of [107:50] divorce center. There are many people [107:51] that just go out for milk and never come [107:53] back or they physically separate and [107:54] then they never finalize the divorce. [107:55] They're not factored into that [107:57] statistic. [107:58] >> So and the people who quietly stay [107:59] together miserable or live in different [108:01] places and just move out and never [108:02] finalize their divorce. That that that [108:04] statistic doesn't include any of those [108:05] people. These are just the people that [108:07] it actually ended in divorce and that [108:09] divorce was registered with the state. [108:11] But the divorce rate went down and then [108:14] it the divorce filing rate spiked when [108:16] the court systems opened back up post [108:18] pandemic and now it's steadily going [108:21] back up again. Now what's interesting is [108:23] the marriage rate is going down and the [108:27] average age at which people marry is [108:30] going up. I was looking at the [108:32] generational divide here and it says [108:34] younger couples so millennials and Gen Z [108:36] divorce rates have plummeted. They are [108:38] marrying later, cohabiting first and [108:40] statistically more selective leading to [108:42] more stable marriages. However, there is [108:44] something called the gray divorce. [108:46] Divorce rates for people over 50 um they [108:50] refer to as gray divorce has doubled [108:52] since 1990 and tripled for those over [108:55] 65. [108:55] >> Yeah, great divorce is a uh something [108:58] that a lot of divorce lawyers are [108:59] thinking and talking a lot about right [109:01] now, which is that first of all, people [109:03] are living much longer. people are [109:05] living in a different way much longer [109:07] thanks to things like erectile [109:08] dysfunction medication. Like you know an [109:11] 80year-old having you know a active sex [109:14] life is not something that really [109:15] existed so often prior to the [109:19] pharmaceutical advent of erectile [109:21] dysfunction drugs which really only [109:22] occurred in the last 20 years. So [109:25] there's a big change in in what a [109:27] 70year-old or 80year-old's quality of [109:30] life is and what they look like and what [109:32] their health is like. So, you know, with [109:33] with uh hormone replacement therapy, [109:36] with you know, all the different [109:37] medications that are out there, people [109:39] are living more uh sexually [109:43] uh you know, and romantically charged [109:45] lives in their elder years than they [109:48] used to, which often leads people to [109:49] say, you know what, I've got 10 more [109:51] years. I'm not going to stay in this [109:52] unhappy relationship and I'm going to [109:54] split up. I actually don't think, by the [109:55] way, that those two statistics that you [109:57] just talked about are unrelated. I think [110:00] millennials, they they haven't been [110:01] married for that long yet. Like the [110:04] question of catastrophic failure of a [110:06] marriage, like I I've said it before [110:07] that people get divorced the same way [110:09] they go bankrupt, very slowly and then [110:12] all at once. What two of the reasons [110:14] given in the research I did as well were [110:15] quite quite [110:18] unobvious on the surface. One of them is [110:20] that women in this generation, boomers [110:21] and Gen Z, are more likely to have their [110:23] own careers and retirement savings than [110:25] previous generations, meaning they can [110:26] afford to leave unhappy marriages. And [110:28] when I've spoken with menopause experts [110:30] and so on, they they've told me they see [110:31] this often that in this season of life, [110:33] women will, you know, make a decision to [110:35] to leave. And the other one is the [110:37] reduced stigma about divorce. [110:40] >> Yeah. [110:40] >> So divorce is no longer seen as a moral [110:42] failure, making it socially easier to [110:44] split later in life. [110:45] >> I believe that that's true. I think that [110:48] we've definitely changed the manner in [110:49] which we relate to divorce. We no longer [110:51] consider it a catastrophic failure [110:54] socially. I think that we often see it [110:56] as the ending of a chapter and the [110:58] beginning of a new one. I don't think [110:59] that that's bad. I think distigmatizing [111:01] divorce and seeing that, okay, sometimes [111:04] it is better for people when the [111:05] relationship is no longer working for [111:07] both of them and they've done the things [111:09] they've tried to do to make it work and [111:11] they've decided that happily ever after [111:12] means happily ever after separately. I [111:14] don't think that's necessarily a bad [111:16] thing. Similarly, you could make the [111:18] argument that one of the reasons [111:19] millennials, and again, only time will [111:20] tell, that millennials are better at uh [111:24] staying married is going to be that they [111:25] go into it with more realistic [111:27] expectations. They don't go into it with [111:29] the expectation that this person is [111:30] going to be their everything. They they [111:31] look at it and go, "Yeah, as a human [111:32] being, I'm marrying another human being. [111:34] I haven't quite figured myself out." [111:37] >> Which of your books was more popular? [111:38] How not to [ __ ] up your marriage, [111:40] straight talk from a divorce lawyer [111:42] who's seen it all, or how to stay in [111:44] love? So, How to Stay in Love has been [111:47] out longer. Yeah. So, it's done quite [111:49] well um over the period of time. It's in [111:52] its fourth printing right now. [111:53] >> And what what about this book do you [111:55] think was resonant? Is there a [111:56] particular idea that was number one in [111:59] this book? [111:59] >> I think a it was the first book written [112:03] by a divorce lawyer to headon take on [112:06] the topic of how to not get divorced. It [112:09] was a how not to book basically. So, I [112:12] think that that was the the key concept [112:14] was uh keeping people connected and and [112:17] what you could learn. Look, who are you [112:19] going to go to if you want to learn how [112:21] to keep your car in good condition? A [112:23] new car dealer or a mechanic? Like, a [112:27] new car dealer only sees brand new cars. [112:29] They don't know anything about, you [112:31] know, about how to actually keep one [112:33] together. Mechanics are good at that. We [112:35] tell you where the predictable points of [112:36] failure are. So, I think that was what [112:38] made the book popular. What's the most [112:41] important thing we didn't talk about [112:42] that we should have talked about as it [112:43] pertains to the subject of holding on to [112:47] this very precious thing and very [112:48] elusive thing for many called love? [112:51] >> You know, something I've been thinking a [112:52] lot about lately is two, [112:56] and I say this to you as an engaged man [112:58] and as a friend. [113:00] I think there's two seemingly [113:02] contradictory [113:05] assumptions people make when they get [113:07] married that I hope you're not making. [113:09] Okay? I hope this couple neither person [113:11] in this couple is making [113:13] one [113:15] is thinking that [113:18] marriage will change the other person. [113:22] So, you know, Steven works so much and [113:24] he's so hard charging, but once we get [113:25] married, he'll come home more and he'll [113:27] be home more and he'll calm down more. [113:29] You know, she's uh uh you know, very [113:32] worried about me when I'm I'm making [113:34] something up, but she's worried about me [113:36] when I'm out and on the road and she's [113:37] worried about temptation bothering me. [113:38] But once we're married, she'll know we [113:40] have a really solid commitment. She [113:41] won't have that worry anymore. Okay? [113:44] Thinking that marriage is going to [113:46] change someone is a very dangerous [113:49] assumption. And a lot of the people that [113:51] come into my office, they entered [113:53] marriage thinking this is going to [113:55] change things that I want to see [113:57] changed. [113:59] The contradictory second thing is [114:02] thinking once we get married nothing [114:05] will change. [114:07] thinking, "This is so lovely. She's so [114:10] wonderful. I love the version of me she [114:13] brings out. So, I'm so wonderful when [114:15] I'm with her." And her thinking, "He's [114:17] so wonderful, and I love who he how he [114:19] makes me." Because, you know, we don't [114:20] just love the person. We love the person [114:23] we are when we're with that person. We [114:26] love how that person makes us feel about [114:28] ourselves. That's a lovely thing. It's [114:29] one of the best things about love, [114:31] right? So making the assumption that [114:35] that will never change that nothing [114:37] about this rel that marrying will [114:40] somehow build a wall around this [114:42] beautiful wonderful warm thing that we [114:44] found together and it'll protect it from [114:46] all the other things in the world and [114:48] nothing will change and it'll just stay [114:50] wonderful is another very dangerous [114:53] assumption. So even though it seems like [114:56] a contradiction, [114:58] I hope that things change and I hope [115:01] some things don't change. And the only [115:04] way that I can think of to let those two [115:07] contradictory elements peacefully [115:09] coexist in a manner that doesn't lead [115:11] directly to the desk in front of me is [115:14] to just keep talking about it. And when [115:17] things change, just talk about it. Just [115:21] point it out. Not with judgment, not [115:22] with anger, not with the belief that [115:25] because something changed it's bad. And [115:27] not with the change that change is [115:29] automatically good. Just saying, "Hey, [115:32] remember these two people? [115:35] That guy's a little different now. Is [115:36] that okay? Why did that happen? Is it a [115:39] good thing? Is it a bad thing? Do you [115:40] miss him? Is there something that we [115:42] could do that's different or better?" [115:44] Like these two people found value in [115:48] each other. They they love the other [115:50] person and they love who they are when [115:52] they're with the person. And again, I'll [115:53] I'll say it again. Your marriage will [115:56] end. I promise. I hope it ends in death. [116:00] And I hope when it ends that you will [116:02] look at her and you will say, "She [116:05] helped me become the most authentic [116:07] version of myself and she's still my [116:10] favorite person." [116:12] That's the greatest gift that you could [116:14] give to her and that you can give to [116:16] each other and that I think the two of [116:18] you together could give to the world. [116:23] And that's worth all the M&M's. [116:27] Why do you point to authenticity as [116:28] being so important in this context? [116:32] Because you use that word, she helped me [116:33] become the most authentic version of [116:35] myself. Why does that matter? Because [116:37] it's not about becoming the version of [116:39] you that she envisions for you or her [116:42] becoming who you want her to become. I [116:45] think that sometimes love [116:48] the person doesn't become what we wanted [116:51] them to be. And I think sometimes what [116:54] we wanted them to be might not be the [116:55] most authentic version of who they are. [116:58] You know Cahel Gabbron in the prophet [117:00] when he's talking about children he says [117:03] that children are living arrows. [117:06] and and and that you you fire the arrow [117:10] and yes, your aim has something to do [117:12] with it, but the wind has something to [117:14] do with it and so many other things have [117:16] something to do with it. And so, you [117:18] know, God loves the archer with the [117:21] steady hand and the arrow that's [117:23] straight. And I feel like if you were to [117:26] say [117:28] this person became who I wanted them to [117:31] become like because again I think our [117:34] duty in the best symbiosis. [117:38] You [117:40] care a lot about her even more so than [117:43] you do about yourself. And she cares [117:47] about you even more so than she does [117:49] about herself. but not to have you [117:52] become the man she wants you to be and [117:54] not for her to become the woman you want [117:56] her to be. You want to be of service to [117:59] her and she wants to be of service to [118:01] you. I want to help you become the most [118:04] authentic version of you. I can see your [118:08] blind spots. You can't. That's why [118:09] they're blind spots. So, I'm going to [118:12] help you become the most authentic [118:14] version of yourself. That's the promise. [118:17] That should be the promise in marriage [118:20] is I want to help you become I'm going [118:21] to do what I can to be of service to [118:24] helping you become the most authentic [118:26] version of yourself. And when you become [118:28] it, you'll still be my favorite person [118:32] because at the core of you is this thing [118:34] that I love. [118:38] >> I hope I do a good job. [118:40] >> I hope you do, too. [118:42] >> Scary, isn't it? Cuz you think of all [118:43] the ways you can [ __ ] it up. It's like, [118:45] do you know what I mean? [118:46] >> But you know what? There's so many ways. [118:47] >> That's why it's brave. Like, if you're [118:49] not scared, it's not brave. [118:52] >> It's brave cuz you're scared and you do [118:53] it anyway. [118:54] >> And it's worth doing it. Because if the [118:57] prize at the end of it is figuring out [118:59] who you are and helping someone figure [119:01] out who they are and having a partner in [119:04] all of this, like, what's better than [119:06] that, man? What what riches could you [119:08] hold that are greater than that? Like, [119:10] that's the greatest gift you could seek [119:12] in life. And and by the way, it also has [119:16] the power, if it's done right, to [119:17] transform the world because it really is [119:21] family, community, [119:24] culture, world, you know, and so yeah, [119:29] it's it's the fact that you say it's [119:31] scary is great because it means you [119:35] realize this is a serious thing and [119:38] something that you realize is serious, [119:40] you're going to make a concerted effort [119:41] to be good at. [119:43] Amen. We have a closing tradition. As [119:45] you know, the question left for you is, [119:48] what is the most significant dream you [119:50] have had in the past year and how did it [119:54] change your behavior? [119:59] [sighs] [120:00] Go on. I know. I want to get through [120:02] this without crying. I had a uh I had a [120:05] dream about my mom. [120:16] It's okay. [120:20] My mom died 10 years ago after a long [120:22] battle with cancer. [120:24] There was a lot between us that needed [120:26] to be said and wasn't said. [120:30] We had some peace and some closure, but [120:35] there's a lot I didn't hadn't figured [120:37] out about myself [120:40] by the time she passed. And there's a [120:42] part of me that wishes she was here so [120:44] that I could have apologized for some [120:48] things I got wrong and I could have [120:50] understood her better. [120:53] And I had a dream [clears throat] [120:56] that she was just there [120:58] just sitting with me. [121:02] And my mom was like me. She never shut [121:05] up. She would just constantly talk and [121:09] talk over you. And [121:12] I got that from her. Her very energetic. [121:14] She also cried constantly and for for [121:17] joy, tears of joy. She would listen to [121:19] music and just start crying because it [121:21] was so beautiful. I realized I got that [121:23] from her. Most of the really warm things [121:25] in me came from her. [121:28] And in this dream, she just sat there [121:31] silently [121:33] and I kept talking to her. I don't [121:35] remember what I was saying, but I just [121:36] kept talking to her. [121:39] And she just sat there quietly and just [121:41] was patting my leg. [121:51] And I I remember I woke up [121:55] and I felt [121:57] I felt very like calm. I felt very like [122:02] I'd spent time with her. [snorts] [122:05] And I thought to myself, I think that [122:08] that was something. I don't know if it [122:10] was her visiting me. I don't know if it [122:12] was God talking to me. I don't know if [122:13] it was just my subconscious telling me [122:15] something I needed to see. [snorts] [122:18] But I felt like it was saying to me [122:20] that, [122:21] you know, that sometimes the words got [122:24] in the way between the two of us [122:27] and that maybe what really mattered the [122:29] most was just that we were next to each [122:31] other. [122:34] And I tried to [122:37] since I had that dream [122:40] um [clears throat] [122:41] do that more with the people I love. [122:45] It's It's hard for me to stop talking. [122:50] And I'm learning [122:53] with my sons and with the people that I [122:55] love that sometimes just being next to [122:58] them is nice. That I don't need to uh [123:03] I'm really good at talking, so I just [123:05] keep doing it. And that maybe sometimes [123:08] it's nice to just stop and just be with [123:11] someone. [123:12] And so I felt like that that was a very [123:16] powerful dream. It was a very simple [123:18] dream, but it was one that it it changed [123:21] the way I'm trying to relate to people. [123:24] [snorts] [123:25] So you got me to cry again, man. Killing [123:27] me. [123:29] >> At the end of [snorts] the day, it all [123:30] comes back to love, doesn't it? [123:32] >> Yeah, it does. Isn't it funny? [123:35] >> All roads. [123:35] >> Isn't it funny? Like we've added all [123:38] these layers of complexity to it, and [123:40] that's all it comes down to. too. Isn't [123:41] it crazy? [123:42] >> Yeah, it really is. [123:43] >> Someone asked me that on stage that like [123:44] last week I was speaking in the Middle [123:46] East somewhere and they asked me about [123:47] like what does everybody want? That was [123:50] literally the question and my answer was [123:51] love. And we all we're like confused [123:53] about the path to it. So some of us [123:55] think the path to it is like if I get [123:56] the number one podcast maybe that will [123:58] make or maybe that would mean I'm worthy [124:00] of love. [124:00] >> Yeah. Like like we we we've come to [124:03] we've come to associate accomplishment [124:05] with being worthy of love. And that's [124:08] really all that it is. Like it's really [124:10] all that it is. Like what otherwise [124:11] what's the purpose of it? Like how many [124:14] supercars can one person have? And how [124:16] much joy can they really give you? You [124:17] can only drive them one at a time, you [124:19] know? Like it really is about like no, I [124:20] feel worthy. I feel worthy of love. I [124:22] feel proud of who I am, which is I'm [124:25] proud of who I am, which means I'm [124:26] worthy of love. It it really all comes [124:28] back to love. It really all comes back [124:29] to love. the the the two things that [124:33] late middle age is helping me see [124:36] is that the hardest thing to become is [124:38] yourself, [124:40] your authentic self. And that really all [124:44] any of us want is to be loved like and [124:47] to be worthy of love. And that [124:50] everything you have will add up to a [124:52] great pile of nothing [124:54] other than the people who you love and [124:57] the people who loved you and the [124:59] experiences you had with those people. [125:03] That's it. That's all that matters. [125:06] Everything else is noise. [125:12] >> James, thank you. [125:13] >> Thank you. Always good to see you. [125:16] >> Good to see you, too. YouTube have this [125:18] new crazy algorithm where they know [125:19] exactly what video you would like to [125:21] watch next based on AI and all of your [125:24] viewing behavior. And the algorithm says [125:26] that this video is the perfect video for [125:29] you. It's different for everybody [125:30] looking right now. Check this video out [125:32] and I bet you you might love