Sacrifice is the new "S" word.

Shh, don't say it. Sacrifice is not a good word. Why should we sacrifice?

I recently attended a workshop on "relationship anarchy" run by a couple of friends. The central idea of the discussion was that we should define our relationships on our own terms. Another explicit principle was that as soon as the relationship no longer served the individuals, they should leave.

They were against the idea that the third entity—the relationship itself—should ever take priority over the individuals. Whenever the needs of the individuals weren't being met, the relationship should either change or be abandoned.

Sounds reasonable, right? Well, let’s unpack the word "change" here—it's a flexible word, but here’s my interpretation in this context: if you’re saying that the relationship should change when the individuals' needs aren’t met, there’s a strong implication that if compromise or sacrifice isn’t possible, the relationship may no longer be viable. To me, this sounds like: once the relationship gets tough or inconvenient, get out. (Yes, I’m being extreme to make a point, don’t hate.)

Here’s the thing: sacrifice has a potent meaning that we often forget (I certainly do). Sacrifice means giving up something valuable for something more important. In the context of a relationship, sacrificing one’s needs for the relationship means prioritizing that third entity over the individuals. Tricky balance, sure, since the individuals are components of the relationship and have needs that must be met. But the idea that we should privilege our individualism over our relationships? I’m not convinced.

Let’s look at another context: friendships. I see this unwillingness to sacrifice prominently in urban cities like New York or San Francisco. While self-preservation and ensuring one's needs are met are important, I can’t help but feel that when things get tough—when someone goes through a prolonged, difficult period in their life—those “friends” often disappear if supporting that person becomes uncomfortable or challenging. The abandonment of the friendship is justified with reasons like needing to take care of oneself or branding the other person as “toxic” or “too much.”

On the one hand, this is reasonable. But it reflects a culture of hyper-individualism. We often fail to take care of our own when it’s inconvenient. We avoid sacrifice—we don’t give up our comfort for our friends.

I’m not advocating for neglecting one’s needs. But I challenge these ideas:

1. Are the things we define as "needs" truly needs? Perhaps they can be suspended or satisfied in creative ways.
2. Should we always privilege these "needs" over our connections?

Tricky, I know. We’re in highly theoretical territory. But if there’s one thing I want us to take away, it’s this: sacrifice is not a dirty word. It’s a beautiful concept. Remember: it’s about giving up something lesser for something greater.

When you encounter a challenging moment in your relationship, ask yourself: What are you sacrificing? What are the two components of that sacrifice? What are you giving up, and what is that in service to?