A Supportive Partner Is Not What You Need
Support can come in many forms. Whatever shape it comes in, it is one of the desired characteristics in selecting a good partner. However, an all-supportive partner should not be desired because it can potentially keep the subject from growing as a person. In this paper, I will show why this is the case. In particular, I will argue that if the partner supports the partner when she should not, the outcome would be nothing more than making an objectively bad decision. Therefore, I propose a four-step strategy to be effectively unsupportive when it is necessary. Following these steps does not fit into the popular definition of supportiveness, but it does help the relationship in extreme cases and dire situations.
Introduction
One seeks support of any kind in times of distress or doubt. Support can come in different types. Roughly speaking, support takes the shapes of Emotional Support (providing empathy, understanding, and encouragement), Informational Support (providing advice, guidance, and information), Instrumental Support (including tangible help or resources, such as financial assistance, help with daily tasks, or access to services), Appraisal Support (providing feedback and evaluations), Social Support (referring to the network of relationships and interactions that provide various forms of aid and encouragement), and Therapeutic Support (professional help from mental health practitioners such as psychologists, psychiatrists, etc.).
One of the most desired characteristics of a potential partner is something that makes one be sure that one can count on them during hardship and in the case of needing help or backup, hence supportiveness. I am not going to say that this should not be the case. Of course, seeking only an unsupportive partner would be misguided! Instead, I am going to propose that an all-supportive partner should not be desired either. An all-supportive partner might take one out of hardships or doubts, but sometimes there is going to be an objectively wrong decision being made by the partner that can only be stopped by someone outside what I call the “comfort bubble”. There are times, I will argue, that a person needs a partner who will stop him from making mistakes, and this is the situation when he thinks he is not making one, but a second person can judge the situation better.
1.
Before I begin, I must clarify what I mean by “not all-supportive.” I’m not referring to outright disapproval (e.g., condemning drug use), nor to support in the opposite direction (e.g., pushing someone to go to the gym instead of using drugs). Rather, I’m discussing a subtler form of unsupportiveness — when one partner refuses to support the other’s comfort-driven but objectively poor life choices.
Consider an example: A has a degree in philosophy and is a gifted teacher, but he works as a waiter. Eventually, he tells his partner, B, that he is content staying a waiter for life. In this case, B chooses not to support his comfort in this unambitious decision. If she supports him, she enables stagnation, despite his potential. Her unsupportiveness challenges him to move forward.
People live in what I call the “comfort bubbles” shaped by subjective facts — mostly feelings — even when they know objective facts — talents and potential. A sees himself as content, but he’s ignoring the objective fact that he is capable of much more. A partner like B, who knows someone’s strengths, fears, and dreams, can be a mirror, showing them what they overlook. B sees what A cannot and can thus guide him toward a more meaningful life. Her refusal to support A’s self-approval is rooted in a deeper understanding of who he truly is.
This type of unsupportiveness — refusing to endorse an objectively wrong decision — is my focus. It differs from opposing support. Unsupportiveness, to be beneficial, must impact decisions. That’s why understanding what can sway someone’s choices is key.
Advice is one such influence — an aspect of informational support. Advice offers reasons for or against a decision. A reasonable advisee considers these reasons and may change course. If A is rational, he’ll realize he can flourish as a teacher and lead a more fulfilled life. (This analysis leaves out emotions, as they entrench one in subjective comfort.)
Yet sometimes advice fails due to akrasia — a term from ancient philosophy referring to acting against one’s better judgment, often driven by emotion. Rational decisions may yield better outcomes, but emotional decisions feel better in the moment, leading to inaction. A prefers being a waiter because it feels easier, even if it's not ideal. In such cases, command may be more effective. Commands can serve several purposes; I focus on (1) when advice fails, and (2) when it serves the commandee’s best interest. Think of a parent “forcing” a child to study. It may start with advice (“Study or fall behind”), but that often fails due to the child’s emotional preference for video games. The parent then commands: either through bribes (supporting the opposite direction) or by removing choices (e.g., taking the console away). The latter, which removes the possibility of continuing the bad behavior, is sometimes essential.
In serious cases, like drug use, the same logic applies. A partner might say: “Stop or I’ll leave.” This removes the comfortable choice and may be more effective than persuasion. In such scenarios, unsupportiveness is not cruelty — it’s care grounded in objective truth.
2.
Unsupportiveness should not be an impulsive reaction to a partner’s objectively bad decision. Despite one’s commitment to logic, it’s natural to feel hurt when seeking comfort and receiving none. Therefore, for unsupportiveness to be effective, it must be planned and structured. This section outlines that structure.
When a partner shares a decision with the other, it often indicates a desire for validation, even if unconsciously. Validation is a form of emotional support, defined as offering comfort, empathy, and understanding to someone facing emotional difficulty. Assuming the partner receiving the information genuinely cares for their partner’s well-being, the goal should not be to make them feel unloved or unsafe. Doing so would only erode trust and render any advice ineffective. The first step, then, is to communicate that any unsupportive stance comes from love and concern. It is because she cares that she is challenging the decision.
The second step is demonstrating understanding of her partner’s reasoning. Every decision is made for reasons that make sense to the decision-maker. To ensure productive dialogue, both parties must engage with these reasons and critically assess their validity. Skipping this step could make the partner feel ignored or dismissed, which can lead to resistance or emotional withdrawal. Acknowledging his reasoning allows the unsupportive partner to meet him where he is before guiding him elsewhere.
The third step involves presenting reasons for disagreement. This step is crucial, as it’s where real persuasion happens. The partner should articulate her concerns using objective facts. For example, she might say, “You’re comfortable being a waiter at forty, but you’re also incredibly talented and could drastically improve your life if you develop those skills.” A partner outside the comfort bubble can more clearly see the objective realities that the other cannot. Because she cares and has perspective, she can present these truths effectively, prompting the partner to reconsider.
If reason fails — either because he cannot see the truth or refuses to — it may become necessary to resist or protest. This is the point of unsupportiveness. The partner must decide how to express her opposition. It could be a refusal to help if the consequences of his decision arise, or an ultimatum such as demanding he pay rent if he continues as a waiter. These actions introduce real-world consequences that force him to face the discomfort his decision could cause. Faced with tangible costs, he may reevaluate whether the comfort of his current choice is worth the difficulties that follow.
At this point, the process of constructive unsupportiveness ends. The next step would involve support in the opposite direction — actively pushing the partner toward a better choice, such as insisting he attend rehab. That requires an extra level of commitment and is a separate issue, based on the supporter’s subjective willingness. Since it involves proactive effort beyond protest, it falls outside the scope of this current argument.
3.
A natural concern about unsupportiveness is whether it can lead to resentment. There are two ways to explore this. Philosophers like Jonas (2017) have examined when resentment toward advice or the advisor is reasonable. For example, an advisee may resent advice if it makes them feel inferior, inadequate, or indebted. They might dislike the advisor for making them feel blameworthy — especially if, after receiving sound reasoning, they still choose the wrong path and can no longer plead ignorance. Resentment also arises when advice seems manipulative. This section focuses on manipulation within unsupportiveness.
Manipulation is often viewed negatively, but this paper defines it more precisely as “deceiving the subject into doing something he does not want to do.” Although controversial, this definition allows for a broader consideration of its ethical dimensions. To clarify, consider an example. John, a wealthy man, avoids paying taxes and treats his gardener badly. His wife tries reasoning with him, but he won’t change. Eventually, she lies, telling John the gardener has an uncle at the IRS who could get John into legal trouble. Fearful, John changes his behavior, treats the gardener well, and they even become friends over time.
Here, the wife’s deception clearly fits the definition of manipulation. She lied to John, but her manipulation resulted in a positive outcome for everyone involved, especially John and the gardener. The ethical question is whether her actions were wrong and whether John has a right to resent her when he eventually learns the truth.
From a rational standpoint, John should not resent his wife. She did what she thought was best for him, and it worked. Her reasoning had previously failed, leaving manipulation as a last resort. John initially had two choices: be rude or be kind. His wife removed the harmful option — not for her own gain, but for his well-being. Her unsupportiveness, even in the form of deception, helped guide him toward better behavior and a more fulfilling relationship with another person.
This leads to a broader conclusion: unsupportiveness should not be resented when it ultimately benefits the subject. Even reasonable people can be unreceptive to logic or advice. When that happens, the caring partner may have no choice but to take stronger measures — through command, threat, or manipulation. These methods may feel intrusive or coercive in the moment, but their long-term value should be appreciated if the result is clearly positive.
In short, not all unsupportiveness is harmful or blameworthy. In some cases, it may be the only way to reach someone who is otherwise trapped in denial, emotional bias, or irrational comfort. When done thoughtfully and with genuine concern, such unsupportiveness — even manipulative acts — can serve as vital tools for growth, better decision-making, and ultimately, a more ethical and fulfilling life. The subject, once out of the comfort bubble, should recognize the care behind such actions and view them with gratitude rather than resentment.
Conclusion
Finding a good partner is one of the most important decisions of life because of both rational and emotional reasons. It can boost one’s overall happiness in life and make one feel loved and cared for. But it also has a significant influence on other important life decisions. The support that comes from a loved one is appreciated and if the partner is a good one, it can push one into making subjectively and objectively good decisions. In this paper, however, I tried to show that sometimes support is itself a bad decision. A good partner, I said, knows when to support (in any form) and when it is time to put a stop to her partner’s objectively bad choices. People, I argued, live in a bubble of comfort, and since it is formed from subjective facts, it can be very hard for them to see the objective facts that exist outside this bubble. That is why most (if not all) bad decisions feel subjectively good but have objectively bad consequences. A good partner who knows one inside out is aware of both the subjective facts (how her partner feels about the topic) and the objective facts (what the real-life consequences of this choice are). She is, then, a good means to guide her partner in the right direction. Even if it means using force, threat, manipulation, or any other harsh measures.
I laid out a four-step strategy to make this process more pleasant. These steps are important because skipping one can cause a big hole in the process. Not making them feel loved, not listening, not giving reasons, and not doing anything to stop the act can sabotage the goal of the conversation. The last step is unsupportiveness, and it comes after being emotionally supportive. This is the other important point — without an initial expression of affection and love, unsupportiveness will not work either. But supporting throughout is not always the right thing to do for a good and caring partner.
◊ ◊ ◊
Sadaf G. Zaki is a PhD student and Junior Research Fellow at the University of Tartu. Her research centers on metaphysics, the philosophy of mind, psychiatry, and logic, with a special interest in how abstract questions about identity, consciousness, and rationality intersect with the lived realities of mental illness.
Originally trained in mathematics, she discovered the philosophy of logic during her undergraduate studies and began teaching herself philosophy long before formally switching fields. She later earned a BA in philosophy in Turkey, completed an MA at Utrecht University, and is now based in Estonia for her doctoral work.
Sadaf G. Zaki on Daily Philosophy:
References
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. Link.
Burleson, B. R., & Greene, J. O. (2003). Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills. L. Erlbaum Associates.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300–314.
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Fishbach, A., & Duckworth, A. L. (2018). Dear Abby: Should I Give Advice or Receive It? Psychological Science, 29(11), 1797–1806. Link.
Frank, E. (2024). Emotional Support and Companionship.
Jonas, M. (2017). Resentment of Advice and Norms of Advice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(4), 813–828. Link.
Jones, S. M., & Koerner, A. F. (2015). Support Types. In The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 1–9). Wiley. Link.
Kant, I. (1797). The Metaphysics of Morals.
March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Rafaeli, E., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2009). Skilled support within intimate relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1 (1), 20–37. Link.
Raz, J. (2002). The authority of law: Essays on law and morality. (Reprinted). Oxford Univ. Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Link.
Sartre, J.-P. (with Macomber, C., Cohen-Solal, A., & Elkaïm-Sartre, A.). (2007). Existentialism Is a Humanism. Yale University Press.
Wiland, E. (2004). Trusting Advice and Weakness of Will. Social Theory and Practice, 30(3), 371–389. Link.
