Lexicon ·
the cardinal rule
noun phrase, in full 'the cardinal rule of relationships'
- Stated meaning
- In any relationship, whoever needs the other less has more control, so a man should need less.
- Operating meaning
- A ranking of two people by how little each admits to wanting, so that the strongest position in a couple is the one nearest the door.
- Origin
- Set down on The Rational Male on August 19, 2011 as the cardinal rule of relationships, restating a principle a sociologist had named in 1938.
- Synonyms
- cardinal rule of relationships
October 4, in my car outside her home, after a concert. F. said, as I recall it, that in her experience men are the more emotional party in relationships. I agreed, on my own record: in most of my relationships the more emotional party had been me, whether or not I said so. The phrase was not used.
The Rational Male (opens in a new window) set it down in August 2011 in one sentence: “In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.” The post applied it to “family, business, etc.” and opened with the author’s job. “I need my employer more than he needs me, ergo I get up for work in the morning and work for him.” A lottery win or a finished master’s degree would reverse the position. The idea was older than the blog. The sociologist Willard Waller had named it the principle of least interest (opens in a new window) in 1938, in a book about the family.
The post was written for men, and said so. Its intent was to reach young men “predisposed to devaluing themselves,” and to have them see themselves “as the PRIZE to be sought after.” It separated power from control and allowed that in a healthy relationship control “passes back and forth as desire and need dictate for each partner.” It closed on a man with “the fortitude to walk away knowing he can and will find a better prospect.”
Under load, the rule ranks two people by how little each admits to wanting. Need cannot be audited from outside, so the score is kept by display: a slower reply, a plan held loosely, an evening ended first. The employer in the original example could read the payroll. A couple has no payroll. When both parties have read the rule, each defers to the other’s indifference, the person with the most power is whichever one is nearest the door, and the relationship is governed from the exit.
By the rule, the party who needs more holds less, and on October 4 I entered myself as that party. The closures in the file do not agree. Of the 6 accounts on this site, 5 were closed by me. The sixth, F.’s, was closed by her on October 7, 3 days after the conversation, in 55 words, and I answered in 15 and was relieved. On the evidence of the file, the more emotional party is also the one who usually reaches the door first, and he keeps the receipts on the way out.