Most of what we call self-care is just better-decorated escape

On the difference between leaving and returning — and why long-term love depends on knowing which one you're doing.

There is a distinction I have been carrying for some time now, both clinically and personally, that I think matters more than almost any other in modern intimate life. It is the distinction between escape and return.

Subscribe to Lucie's Substack

They can look identical from the outside. A woman closes her laptop at six on a Friday, puts on running shoes, and leaves the house alone for an hour. A man takes himself off to a café on a Sunday morning with a book. A couple goes on holiday. Each of these acts can be a return — a deliberate movement back toward oneself, after which the person comes home more here, more available, more present in the room with the people they love. And each of these same acts can be an escape — a deliberate movement away from a life that has become unbearable to inhabit, after which the person comes home no more present than when they left, only briefly anaesthetised against the absence.

The outside cannot tell which is which. The body knows. The partner knows. And — this is the part that interests me most — the person doing the leaving very often does not.

—

We live, I think, in a culture that has lost the distinction. The vocabulary of self-care has flattened the two into one. Any act of solitude, any retreat from obligation, any boundary, any spa day, any solo walk has been gathered under a single approving banner: good for you. You needed that. Take the time. The cultural permission is broad and unconditional.

We do not, on the whole, ask the next question, which is: what did you do with the time? What did you actually meet when you were away from the noise? Did you come back changed in any way — or did you come back the same, only quieter?

This is not a moral failure of individuals. It is a structural feature of a paradigm that has asked one person, and one couple, to carry far more than either was historically asked to carry. We are tired in ways our grandparents would not recognise — not tired from physical labour but tired from sustained low-grade incoherence, from the daily negotiation of identities and roles and screens and inputs. The instinct to leave is intelligent. It is the nervous system telling the truth about what it cannot metabolise.

The problem is not the leaving. The problem is that leaving, on its own, does not return us anywhere. It only buys us a brief absence from a life we have not yet learned how to live differently.

—

I think of escape as movement away from. Return is movement toward.

Escape is structured by what you are running from. Its destination is anywhere-but-here. You can tell you are in an escape by the quality of your relief: the relief is negative — the absence of the thing you were under. The relief of being out of the kitchen. Out of the conversation. Out of the marriage, briefly. Out of yourself, briefly. The escape works only as long as the absence holds. The moment the kitchen, the conversation, the marriage, the self closes back around you, the relief evaporates and the depletion reasserts itself, often slightly worse than before.

Return is structured by what you are moving toward. Its destination is a specific place inside yourself — a quality of attention, a register of feeling, a felt sense of being inhabited again. You can tell you are in a return by the quality of the relief: the relief is positive — the presence of something rather than the absence of it. A return brings something home with it. After a return, the kitchen and the conversation and the marriage do not feel worse. They often feel slightly more bearable, or at least more honestly seen, because the person re-entering them has more of themselves available to bring.

The clinical test, when I am sitting with someone trying to work out which one they have been doing, is simple. After the activity, are you more here — more available to the people you love, more in contact with your own life — or are you just less depleted for a few hours, after which the depletion returns at full strength? The first is a return. The second is an escape with good branding.

—

Most of the people I work with have learned to escape elegantly. They have curated escapes — yoga, podcasts, long runs, weekends away, gardening, woodworking, the gym. None of these are bad. Each of them can be a return, in the right hands. The question is not what the activity is. The question is what the person is doing inside it.

I worked, some years ago, with a couple in which one partner was, on paper, a model of self-care. She ran. She meditated. She had a therapist of her own. She took herself off for long walks. Her husband admired her routine — and could not, separately, understand why she came back from each of these things no more available to him than when she left. She, equally, could not understand why all of her good practices were not adding up to a richer marriage. She was doing everything right.

What we eventually noticed, together, was that she was not returning during any of it. She was leaving. Each activity was an elegant departure from a life she had stopped knowing how to inhabit. She came back to her marriage overwhelmed, attentive to all the things that had gone differently than she imagined — unwashed dishes, or kids happy but still wide awake around bedtime — no more present, because she had not, in any of those hours, been present anywhere else either. She had been moving — quickly — through the time, the way you move through an airport. None of it had touched her. None of it had asked her to come into closer contact with herself. It had only let her be briefly elsewhere.

The shift, when it came, was small and unromantic. She did not need different practices. She needed to practise, inside the existing ones, the discipline of actually arriving — both in her practice and then upon return. A run she actually felt in her legs rather than soundtracked through. A meditation she did not measure. A walk where she let the question she had been avoiding catch up with her on the trail, instead of outpacing it. And upon returning, she would allow herself the time to transition back into a role that was waiting for her. Whether the role waiting for her was partner or parent.

Within a few months, she came back differently. Not because she was doing different things. Because she had begun, inside the same things, to return rather than to leave.

—

I think about this often in my own life, particularly on mountain trails. A trail can be either thing. There are days when I am walking to be no longer at my desk, no longer in my inbox, no longer in whatever conversation I did not handle well that morning. The legs move, the hours pass, the elevation accumulates, and at the end of it I am tired but no more present — I have outrun the thing rather than met it. That is an escape. It is not nothing — sometimes the nervous system needs an escape and we should not moralise about it — but it does not return me to anyone.

And then there are days when the trail is doing something else. My legs do the literal work, my mind eventually has no choice but to follow, and somewhere around the second hour the noise drops out and the question I had been avoiding shows up beside me. Not pleasantly. But honestly. I am, for those hours, in actual contact with my own life. When I come down, I come down differently. My partner can feel it before I have said a word. That is a return. I came back with something.

The difference is not visible from outside. The difference is everything from inside.

Although the smart watch, it turns out, can usually measure it.

—

What this distinction asks of us, I think, is a more honest reckoning with what we are doing when we leave. Not less leaving — most modern lives require regular departures, and pretending otherwise is a recipe for collapse. But more truthful leaving. Naming, even just to ourselves, whether this is a movement away from or a movement toward. Whether we are running or returning.

Long-term love, in my experience, is not destroyed by absence. Two people can spend a great deal of time apart and remain deeply known to each other. Long-term love is destroyed by accumulated unreturned absence — by years of small departures from which no one ever quite comes back. The partner is not, in the end, asking for more presence in quantity. They are asking to be met by someone who has actually arrived somewhere — anywhere — and brought themselves home from it.

—

Escape leaves you somewhere else. Return brings you back. The first is sometimes necessary. The second is what love is built on.