Based on the analysis of psychoanalyst Christian Richomme, immersed in these discreet mechanisms which, over time, erode the relationship. What if understanding these flaws already made it possible to repair them?
The silent erosion of bonds: when loving is no longer enough
In the collective imagination, breakups often have a spectacular face: violent arguments, infidelity, open crises… However, the reality is very different. In consultation, the observation is more subdued, almost disturbing: couples who love each other… but who no longer really meet.
The numbers speak for themselves. Next to 60% of separations are not linked to any specific event, but to an accumulation of silent frustrations. Even more striking: 72% of people say they still love their partner when they break up.
How to explain this paradox?
The first error, undoubtedly the most widespread, lies in a deeply rooted belief: that love is enough to keep a relationship going. As if feeling alone could compensate for misunderstandings, injuries or discrepancies.
“We are taught to fall in love, but rarely to build a relationship” deplores psychoanalyst Christian Richomme.
Over time, this illusion gives way to a more complex reality. Loving does not protect. And when relational tools are lacking, the bond crumbles — not for lack of feeling, but for lack of understanding.
The trap of silence: these tensions that we no longer dare to say
Faced with difficulties, many couples choose — often unconsciously — to avoid conflict. For the sake of preserving the other, or maintaining a form of apparent peace. We keep quiet. We minimize. We postpone.
But this silence, far from soothing, acts like slow acid. It widens invisible distances, sets up lasting misunderstandings. Gradually, partners stop sharing what is really going through them. And according to the expert:
“A couple is not destroyed by arguments… but by what we no longer say to each other.”
This phenomenon is all the more insidious because it gives the illusion of balance. No shouting, no open conflict — and yet, a form of emptiness sets in. According to available data,
one in two couples believe they no longer “really communicate” after a few years of relationship. The emotional connection diminishes. The link becomes functional, sometimes cordial, but less lively. And what made the relationship unique – this feeling of being deeply seen and understood – gradually fades away.
Invisible patterns: when history repeats itself without our knowledge
At the heart of this relational mechanism, a third error, even deeper: the repetition of unconscious patterns.
Attraction for a certain type of partner, disproportionate reactions, fear of abandonment or rejection… These dynamics do not arise by chance. They are anchored in a personal history, often ancient, sometimes little known.
“We don’t just choose a partner…we often replay a story.” specifies our expert. Without awareness, these repetitions become traps. The same misunderstandings replay themselves, the same wounds are rekindled, to the point of exhausting the relationship — even when the attachment remains strong.
That’s the difficulty: these errors are invisible precisely because they seem normal. They become established in everyday life, in habits, in things left unsaid. Day after day, they transform a living bond into a fragile relationship.
And yet, another path is possible, according to Christian Richomme.
“Couples who last are not those who love each other the most… but those who learn to understand what is at stake between them.”
Learn to meet again
Through his work — particularly in The 3 secrets of couples that last — Christian Richomme offers a lucid but deeply constructive reading of life together.
Understanding these mechanisms is not about pointing out mistakes. It is opening a space of consciousness. Give meaning to what seemed confusing. And, sometimes, offer a second chance to the relationship.
Because behind these invisible errors, there is a more essential reality: the desire for connection. That of continuing to love — but differently. More lucidly. Deeper.
And perhaps, through this understanding, rediscover what was, in the beginning, the strength of “we”.