Romance and relationships: A pointless concept (quite long)

[Fatal Femme]

I just couldn't resist changing the mood in this forum as I love a good debate. While it appears that most people come here to seek advice for their romantic problems, I'd like to ask what is the point of the whole romance thing.

 

It is perfectly valid and acceptable to question the purpose of marriage in the 21st century. Some people already regard it as an old-fashioned, outdated social institution. Since, in our society, a dating relationship precedes marriage (as opposed to the arranged marriages in other parts of the world), if people are to question what is the point of marrying, then we should also be questioning what is the point of the rituals that lead up to it, namely, the dating relationship.

 

In non-Western societies, marriages tend to be arranged and more ‘obligatory’ in nature. Women are usually uneducated and have no wealth of their own, so they rely on men for financial support. Men rely on women to give birth to offspring to continue the family line. While I do not agree with the non-democratic nature of arranged marriages, non-Western society emphasizes a sense of commitment and obligation to a mate, which makes for far more successful marriages than the typical Western marriage based on romance. Married couples who hail from non-Western cultural backgrounds tend to be very committed to each other in their relationships and stand by their partner through thick and thin. The divorce rate is generally quite low. In these societies, marriage as a social institution works out quite well. This is evident in the number of marriages that stand the test of time, in contrast to those of Western society.

 

Most Western marriages are not built on a sense of obligation, but on romantic love, which is a fallacy. The sequence of events leading up to marriage in our society goes something like this. A young man and young woman meet and are attracted to each other, primarily based on physical appearance. They have hardly anything in common, but initially regard their (eventually found to be) insurmountable differences as a positive trait, because opposites are supposed to attract . The relationship is characterized by the participants’ inability to keep their hands off each other, an overemphasis on sensuality (as shown by the sheer amount of money people spend to look, feel and smell good while dating), and a penchant for going on dates which aim to escape the drudgery of everyday life (e.g. candlelit dinners or moonlit walks on the beach), all of which warps life’s harsh realities. After spending a few years getting to know each other in these romantic but unrealistic settings, if the couple agree to get married, the woman stresses out in case something goes wrong on her wedding day, shattering her hopes for the perfect fairytale wedding. Both parties visualize a future of wine dine 69 happiness for the rest of their lives. The couple get married and once they realize that married life is not all candlelit dinners and moonlit walks on the beach, but household chores, finances and screaming babies, they end up very disappointed. They also realize how little they have in common with each other, once the honeymoon phase is over and the realities of life sink in. The couple divorces and both former partners repeat the chain of events with other people, trapped in a vicious circle of disposable Kleenex relationships and marriages.

 

It is obvious that the typical Western marriage based on romance is a recipe for failure, given that the vast majority of marriages end in divorce. Even taking into account that the Western world is more democratic and divorce is easier to obtain, the real problem is that many failed marriages are heavily based on romance, which is fake anyway. Look up 'romance' in a good dictionary and there will be a definition like a 'made-up story', 'fanciful or extravagant invention or exaggeration'. In fact, a romance used to mean a tale depicting heroic or marvellous achievements, or other matters of a kind to appeal to the imagination (as in medieval romances). Note the recurring emphasis on make-believe in all of the definitions. Romantic love is so-called because people have extended this fairytale notion to relationships. If someone builds the foundation for a marriage on something that doesn’t even exist in real life (namely, romantic love), then of course they are doomed to fail.

 

Romance is plastic and disposable. While I believe in love that does not involve a sexual element (as in love of family, friends or pets), romantic love is simply plain fictitious. Lust definitely exists (it is a biological manifestation of humanity’s drive to reproduce the human race), but romantic love does not. Most often people mistake lust for love. People regard love as a tingly feeling that makes the heart race, the cheeks flush and the palms sweat. All that is really just lust and hormonal urges. Many people in a dating relationship are in it for the adrenaline surge they can obtain form each other, and their relationship is based on emotions and physical pleasures, rather than a sense of commitment or obligation to be loyal and stand by the other person. Physical and emotional feelings fluctuate anyway, which makes for a very unstable relationship that lasts only until the couple become desensitized by the physical interaction and/or push each other’s emotions way past animosity, at which point they part ways because ‘the lovin’ is gone!’. What a fake, disposable form of love. There is more genuine love and sense of caring between platonic friends, or occasionally even perfect strangers. If a person donates money to a homeless man on the street out of sympathy, there is more love in that act of generosity than can be found in a romantic relationship where the participants are deceived by their hormones into believing that they love each other. The feelings arising from a romantic relationship are merely the result of biochemistry, as proven by scientific fact.

 

It is scientifically known that the body produces chemicals called pheromones, whose role is to attract the opposite sex. People feel sexually attracted to someone if the pheromones they emit react favourably with their own, and usually such a person will be genetically quite different. It all comes down to the mating and survival instinct, where a diverse combination of genes produces healthy offspring. This is why people are not sexually attracted to close family members, who are obviously genetically quite similar (well, I suppose a small percentage of the population are , but incest is another topic outside the scope of my discussion). Once a couple have gotten past the initial attraction and the relationship begins, physical interaction produces a flood of pleasure-arousing chemicals rushing to the brain, which are actually not too different from narcotics in their chemical makeup. It is extremely possible (and common) to be addicted to these chemicals of lust, which explains why many people have difficulty leaving relationships that are detrimental to them. A particular chemical (called oxytocin) is known to cause women to feel extreme attachment to their male partners, which accounts for the sheer amount of emotional devastation women go through when they break up with men, and women’s reluctance to walk out on an unhealthy or destructive relationship because they would rather experience the chemistry with ‘bad boys’ .

 

At the end of the day, what romantics classify as love is simply just body chemistry! Lust exists because humans have a biological drive to reproduce. But, to build a relationship on reproductive drives, when the aim of the relationship is not to reproduce (the birth rates in romance-influenced societies are at an all-time low), is a recipe for failure. What’s worse is that people in lust think they love each other. Romantic love doesn’t exist – only lust does, having its place in our animal nature or inner beast (although the very real existence of lust is not necessarily a good thing, as the high prevalence of STDs and unwanted pregnancies will suggest).

 

A maxim of the romantic school of thought is that opposites attract. Opposites may initially attract, but they do not stay together. Compatible romantic relationships are moot because most men and women are too different to have anything in common anyway . Many women cannot understand why men love sport, while men cannot understand why women love shopping. On the other hand, men are not generally attracted to tomboys and women are not attracted to effeminate men, although such people may in fact have more in common and be more compatible as partners. Romance apparently thrives on the partners being as vastly different from each other as possible. This formula will surely crash and burn, since each party shows no enthusiasm in the other’s interests and will quickly end up bored and frustrated. It appears that in most relationships, all that the participants really have in common is lust.

 

In the fruitless pursuit of romantic love, couples give each other superficial, throwaway gifts such as flowers, perfume and lingerie. Flowers die in 2-3 days or so, perfume is applied to the body only once and is gone, and lingerie is typically made of too flimsy material for it to be practical. In fact I would be offended if I was given perfume or lingerie, not just because I refuse to worship stupid Cupid, but because any guy that insists on telling me how I should smell or dress isn’t worth a second of my time. Most stereotypically ‘romantic’ gifts are very transient in nature, which is obviously a reflection of the fleeting nature of romantic relationships. Our society’s value system in relation to looking for a mate is a by-product of disposable American culture – they gave us disposable cameras, disposable nappies, disposable food packaging, and last but not least, disposable relationships.

 

Building a relationship based on romantic expectations obviously leads to dissolution, and I don’t want to get started on the damage that it does to the welfare of children. While I agree that a person with kids should divorce their abusive partner so the children can grow up in a peaceful environment, ending a relationship when there are children involved simply because ‘the romantic spark is gone’ is just plain selfish. It is depressing to see that despite the scientific and technological advances of the 21st century, people still want to live a fairytale existence. They are oblivious to hurting themselves, other people and society by coveting something that does not exist outside of Mills and Boon novels . Obviously many people are incapable of differentiating between reality and fantasy, with romance being a fantasy of course, and a very destructive one at that. There is nothing wrong with fantasy per se, as long as it is restricted to the confines of the mind. For example, I like sword-and-sorcery fantasy such as LOTR, but I know not to walk down the street waving a sword around . On the other hand, people indulge in romantic fantasy and want to live the fairytale, and often do all sorts of harmful things in the pursuit of happily-ever-after romantic bliss – everything from infidelity to using sex as a weapon to make someone jealous to using children as an excuse to hold onto a relationship. Betrayal, revenge, exploitation and manipulation are rife in the search for romance, and everyone involved suffers emotional and occasionally even physical hurt. All this for something that doesn’t even exist in real life! I find it ironic that there are people who want censorship or banning of violent movies and heavy metal albums, based on the belief that such material will pervert impressionable minds, yet fail to notice that idealized notions of romance are causing a great deal of social damage. Romance is a mythical construct from medieval times when tales of chivalrous knights and courtly love were the norm, and it is a pity to see that people are still pursuing it in the 21st century with absolutely no regard as to who gets harmed in the process.

 

While I will stick to my belief that romance is plastic and synthetic, I would also like to add that relationships and marriage are redundant in this time and place anyway. The only real benefit of marriage is that any offspring of the couple will grow up in a stable environment, but the world is already overcrowded and the environment cannot sustain the people who are already in existence, so reproduction is unnecessary. Likewise, relationships and marriage are just as unnecessary. Our society peddles its people to find lasting connection with someone of the opposite gender, which I think is no longer valid in 21st century Western society. At the beginning I stated that couples in non-Western cultures are more dependent on each other and need each other more. In Western society, people are raised to be more independent. If you want to be independent, why bind yourself to one half of a couple?

 

In pre-20th century Western society and in non-Western society to this day, marriage was the only means for a woman to survive, as she had neither the finances nor education levels required to be self-sufficient. In modern Western society, women have opportunities to pursue education and careers, so this should eliminate the financial and material dependence on relationships and marriage. So what else would a woman be looking for in a relationship? Companionship? Someone to share her feelings with? A shoulder to cry on? I don’t see the reasoning behind this, because everyone knows that women, NOT men, make better people to discuss emotional problems and issues with. They listen better and are more sympathetic than men, which isn’t exactly a PC opinion, but any psychologist will attest to the fact that women’s brains are wired to be more in touch with their emotional and nurturing side. So if a woman wants emotional support, she should seek that in her female friends, not a boyfriend. Relating on an emotional level is simply not encoded in the male DNA, which explains why men place far more importance on the physical relationship. A woman who tries to rely on a man for emotional nurturance is shooting herself in the foot and needs to have a reality check. In this society, there are plenty of single women and they get many opportunities to network with and support each other, so why would any woman want to rely on a man for emotional support? It’s like asking a lawyer to repair a computer – they can’t do it as it is not their specialty . Likewise, many men do not specialize in feelings.

 

Surveys have shown that relationships benefit men much more than women. The consensus seems to be that men with partners are considerably healthier and live much longer than single men, but there is no dramatic increase in quality of life in partnered women. In fact, it has been suggested that women in a relationship may actually be worse off than single women. Partnered women are more stressed, more neurotic, more conscious of their body image and more likely to get depressed than single women, due to the biological and social pressures placed on them. On the other hand, men benefit from the wifely nagging to have a health check-up, go to the doctor, not engage in risky behaviour and give up undesirable habits such as heavy drinking. (In my opinion any man who needs a woman to change him is a loser). Men benefit considerably, but is there any such benefit for women? Relationships are nothing more than a construct of patriarchal society, and in modern feminism-influenced Western society, women should be able to see that they are really getting the short end of the stick in relationships. It is a social institution that only benefits men.

 

Western society espouses self-reliance and being able to stand on your own two feet. Depending on others is considered weak – derogatory phrases such as 'mummy’s boy' reflect this sentiment. People are expected to leave home in their late teens or early 20s and become ‘independent’. Even though the feminist movement has removed the financial dependence aspect of relationships, a couple are still nevertheless physically and/or emotionally dependent on each other. Independence is always sacrificed in a relationship as time, energy and other resources are no longer solely yours. Persuaded by the sentimental nonsense of fairytales and Hollywood movies, many people in Western society regard lifelong romantic companionship with a member of the opposite sex, as their highest calling in life. It is ironic how our society promotes independence, yet expects people to become dependent on someone else later in life. It is considered contemptuous to depend on parents, yet it is desirable and indeed expected to depend on a partner?

 

Let’s assume that the average person leaves home at 18 to become independent and spends the next few years of their life getting an education, establishing a career and buying their own property, before getting hitched at 30. The marriage will most likely not last because both parties, who have been accustomed to over a decade of living independently, suddenly need an attitude readjustment. They eventually become disgruntled with the reduced sense of freedom and personal space, and are subject to the rude awakening that such a partnership isn’t blissfully happy like in the movies or fairytales, but is all about being ‘tied down’. So the marriage does not work and divorce is on the cards. Even relationships that don’t end in marriage tie down both people, greatly reducing their independence. During an ‘independent’ period, people sow their wild oats, and given the sheer length of time they usually stay in this phase, it is ridiculous to expect someone to do a 180 degree turn and come to terms with the lost independence that accompanies a committed relationship . Most likely they will continue to sow their wild oats after marriage (by having affairs for example). A leopard does not change its spots.

 

To use an example, I am right-handed and have written with my right hand all my life. If someone told me that I had to write with my left hand from now on, I suppose it can be done with practice, but chances are I would be so unaccustomed to writing with my left hand that I would switch back to my right hand in frustration. I think life at large works on a similar principle – old habits die hard if at all, and it makes no sense to pressure people to get into a relationship and depend on someone else when they have been independent for so long. In non-Western societies, people marry young and do not go through a ‘wild oats’ period. They do not crave independence and personal space as they have hardly experienced it. That is one reason why they have much more success with the institution of marriage. Non-Western cultures are collectivistic and emphasize compromise and sacrifice, whereas Western cultures are individualistic and emphasize independence and self-reliance. Non-Westerners value stability, while Westerners prize an appetite for adventure, excitement and variety. Which value system is more conducive to a lasting relationship?

 

In conclusion, not only is the Western concept of romantic relationships completely unrealistic and unhealthy, the need for relationships is obsolete in 21st century Western society. They are detrimental to women’s well-being, and women have much better choices available to them. Independence is not a bad thing (I enjoy my own sense of independence), but its emphasis in Western society creates individuals whose egos are too big for them to contemplate being devoted to someone else for the rest of their lives. As a product of Western society myself, I know I love myself too much to give myself away like that. The Western value system simply isn’t conducive to lasting relationships. Therefore, the relationship should be an obsolete social institution. It is simply no longer necessary, or even viable.

 

I am open to debate any of the points I’ve mentioned, but please make sure it is constructive debate. Don’t accuse me of being a jealous, bitter, man-hating girl with a chip on my shoulder, pissed off at not being able to find a boyfriend. I have been in relationships before, but I find no sense of fulfilment or happiness in a conventional relationship, am currently happily single and intend to stay that way. I also have quite a few male friends, so I am not bitter towards the male of the species. They make up half the world population so it is pointless to hate them, but it is also pointless to pursue romantic relationships with them, for all of the reasons I’ve discussed.

 

P.S. Sorry about the length if you have made it this far, but words are a limited form of expression and so far I haven't found any threads on this topic, so I had to list all my ideas.

[moimeme]

Zowie!

 

Congrats on the typing marathon! Actually, many of the points in your essay have been made before on LS, some even by me, but you did do a good job of creating an essay about all this.

 

So you like a debate, huh? Goody. Me too.

 

I do agree with you on many points, but not all. Here's a few I have thoughts on:

 

Relating on an emotional level is simply not encoded in the male DNA

 

I think you've reached into hyperbole a tad for this one.

 

Men and women may relate differently, but to generalize that far is to go too far.

 

which explains why men place far more importance on the physical relationship. A woman who tries to rely on a man for emotional nurturance is shooting herself in the foot and needs to have a reality check.

 

There are lots of men who are very good at being caring and nurturing. I have heard that Australian men on the whole behave more 'macho' and thought that was only a generalization. Perhaps it's true, but if it is, I suggest it's societal rather than genetic.

 

It is ironic how our society promotes independence, yet expects people to become dependent on someone else later in life. It is considered contemptuous to depend on parents, yet it is desirable and indeed expected to depend on a partner?

 

I don't know what, exactly, you mean by 'depend'. If you mean emotionally - well, nobody suggests that people don't need support systems; in fact it's accepted wisdom that support networks promote better health. The type of 'dependence' that people may scorn when adults depend on parents is the type which is caused by someone's refusal to grow up and take responsibility for his or her own life.

 

During an ‘independent’ period, people sow their wild oats, and given the sheer length of time they usually stay in this phase, it is ridiculous to expect someone to do a 180 degree turn and come to terms with the lost independence that accompanies a committed relationship . Most likely they will continue to sow their wild oats after marriage (by having affairs for example).

 

Some will, some won't. Being independent isn't Nirvana. Some people find out that the partnership, companionship, and better sex life that results from knowing someone very well is far more rewarding than flitting from bed to bed for the sake of trying out new shapes and sizes of human.

 

old habits die hard if at all, and it makes no sense to pressure people to get into a relationship and depend on someone else when they have been independent for so long

 

Your theme seems to be 'dependence'. Why not think of it as cooperating and collaborating? We humans are social animals; we need to work along with other humans and we're pretty much designed for pair bonding.

 

Non-Western cultures are collectivistic and emphasize compromise and sacrifice, whereas Western cultures are individualistic and emphasize independence and self-reliance.

 

You can be independent and still sacrifice and compromise.

 

Non-Westerners value stability, while Westerners prize an appetite for adventure, excitement and variety.

 

Nothing says you can't share adventure with your partner.

 

A leopard does not change its spots.

 

Really not relevant. A cute little saying, but not useful; we are not leopards, and spots are external appearance. Leopards and all animals can be unpredictable and certainly humans can and do change.

 

As a product of Western society myself, I know I love myself too much to give myself away like that.

 

But that's you. And anyway, how are you giving yourself away? You can still be you - but you have to have a relationship with someone who likes that particular you or of course it won't work.

 

The Western value system simply isn’t conducive to lasting relationships. Therefore, the relationship should be an obsolete social institution. It is simply no longer necessary, or even viable.

 

Well here's the thing that really got to me. Fine, believe what you believe. Fine, absent yourself from the system if you see fit, but you are not the first poster to post a lengthy diatribe against marriage, relationships, or whatever form of pair bond ticks you off - only to then conclude that the entire system ought to be changed to suit your vision and preference.

 

Thanks, but I'm quite capable of forming a lasting and loyal pair bond without feeling I'm becoming 'dependent', 'tied down' or that I'm giving myself up. I won't argue for the merits of lust-driven infatuation, but there are other sorts of relationships, other ways of figuring out if someone is a person you'd enjoy spending your life with, and loving someone is, I do believe, the greatest pleasure of all. So if it's all the same to you, let's leave the system as it is and the folks who don't want to participate can make that choice.

[Thinkalot]

Hello- I also must commend you on such a lengthy thoughtful post.

I have read many such sentiments on this site before, against the western institution of marriage.

 

While I do agree with some of your points about lust/romantic love, and marriages based on rather questionable foundations, I do not agree that marriage should be thrown away as obsolete. There are still many valid reasons people marry. Different people have different reasons for doing so. I am marrying in 2 months. I look forward to making things official, to being able to celebrate our love in a traditional way in front of family and friends, and becoming a family unit together. I will also enjoy the symbolism of exchanging rings, and being able to wear a ring, and also conducting a spiritual unity candle ceremony. These things obviously aren't for everyone, but that does not mean they don't suit anyone.

Sure, in addition, probably part of me has been influenced by fairytale images of my wedding day. I admit that. But I am not marrying in the hope of living a fairytale.

 

I would also question your comments that MOST people's marriages are based on such flimsy foundations. I have been, for example, with my fiance for 3 1/2 years. I certainly would not say those years have been a fairytale. We already live together, share finances and have shouldered some burdens, and overcome some fairly big challenges to make it this far. And of course, we have shared, and do share romantic love as well.

 

Also, you trash the concept of romance completely. While I would agree, a marriage based purely on romantic love may not survive...i do think there is a place for both romantic and companion (the more platonic, deeper kind of love, which revolves more around love of the person, and being their companion) love in a marriage. Romantic love, when added into the mix, can do wonders for keeping the relationship exciting, sexy, and fun. And what is wrong with that? Those things add to the enjoyment of life.

I would therefore challenge, among other things, this statement:

 

 

Originally posted by Fatal Femme

In the fruitless pursuit of romantic love, couples give each other superficial, throwaway gifts such as flowers, perfume and lingerie. Flowers die in 2-3 days or so, perfume is applied to the body only once and is gone, and lingerie is typically made of too flimsy material for it to be practical. In fact I would be offended if I was given perfume or lingerie, not just because I refuse to worship stupid Cupid, but because any guy that insists on telling me how I should smell or dress isn’t worth a second of my time. Most stereotypically ‘romantic’ gifts are very transient in nature, which is obviously a reflection of the fleeting nature of romantic relationships.

 

Well, in my relationship,which as I have said, is anything but purely romantic, we do all these things for each other. It makes us happy. It makes the giver and the receiver feel good. It does not mean our relationship is fleeting or transient. Frankly, if my fiance gives me lingerie and wants to appreciate my body- great. I do not feel threatened, or think he is trying to tell me how to dress. He is giving me something which will in the end, please us both. I love to wear nice lingerie- it makes me feel sexy and good. He admires it on my body. No harm there. We both know I do not walk around 24/7 in a lacy slip...but every now and then, we can both enjoy it.

 

If he is having a stressful day at work, I sometimes send him flowers. It makes him feel special- it cheers him up. So what if they die in a few days! They achieved something in their short time frame anyway. And then my companion and life partner, has been given a lift.

 

I could go on, but I think you get my drift. You have taken a very black and white approach here, but there is a lot of middle ground which should not be overlooked, in my opinion.

 

And moi- as for Australian men being more macho, I suppose it is a stereotype, but one which does spring from some degree of truth. I certainly noticed the difference in Canadian and american men when I was in those countries for lengthy periods of time. That said, I have managed to snag a man who is very in touch with his feminine side, and likes to talk, and do romantic things, and when we met, owned more bathroom products than me!

[jellybean]

Excellent post, Fatal Femme......

 

I myself have been doing alot of thinking in respect to the so-called sanctity of marriage...due to the high failure rate, I'm starting to believe that it's more like a joke, and the norm in Western society is to have a revolving door of lovers throughout your lifetime.

 

What REALLY caught my eye in your post was this :

 

Originally posted by Fatal Femme

 

non-Western society emphasizes a sense of commitment and obligation to a mate, which makes for far more successful marriages than the typical Western marriage based on romance. Married couples who hail from non-Western cultural backgrounds tend to be very committed to each other in their relationships and stand by their partner through thick and thin. The divorce rate is generally quite low. In these societies, marriage as a social institution works out quite well. This is evident in the number of marriages that stand the test of time, in contrast to those of Western society.

 

I have seen a couple of long-lasting, successful, happy marrriages...and it wasn't for the reasons most people think....it was due to the partners sharing an equal level of COMMITTMENT in the relationship.

 

The debate continues....NEXT!

[Thinkalot]

Originally posted by jellybean

....it was due to the partners sharing an equal level of COMMITTMENT in the relationship.

 

definately something lacking in many relationships, I would agree

[d'Arthez]

Wow, you have made an extremely long post.

The [most] relationship is[are] characterized by the participants? inability to keep their hands off each other, an overemphasis on sensuality (as shown by the sheer amount of money people spend to look, feel and smell good while dating), and a penchant for going on dates which aim to escape the drudgery of everyday life (e.g. candlelit dinners or moonlit walks on the beach), all of which warps life?s harsh realities.

We can agree on this, if it is factually correct. But if people want to build up a relationship this way, and work to marriage this way, let them. The problem is not romantic relationships, but the expectancies people have concerning these, if you will stupidity. You might as well have written the whole thing, as a proposal to outlaw stupidity. Or at least to remove the clauses in the laws that state that at a certain age, you are considered an adult and are fully responsible for all your actions.

There is more genuine love and sense of caring between platonic friends, or occasionally even perfect strangers. If a person donates money to a homeless man on the street out of sympathy, there is more love in that act of generosity than can be found in a romantic relationship where the participants are deceived by their hormones into believing that they love each other. The feelings arising from a romantic relationship are merely the result of biochemistry, as proven by scientific fact.

Sadly you are mostly correct in this view.

Many women cannot understand why men love sport, while men cannot understand why women love shopping. On the other hand, men are not generally attracted to tomboys and women are not attracted to effeminate men, although such people may in fact have more in common and be more compatible as partners.

Don't forget that a lot of socializing imprints gender-identity on women and men. Which creates expectancies. For a lot of traditional women, that means the expectancy to run the household, with her future husband, masculine and breadwinner. To name but one important thing.

In the fruitless pursuit of romantic love, couples give each other superficial, throwaway gifts such as flowers, perfume and lingerie. Flowers die in 2-3 days or so, perfume is applied to the body only once and is gone, and lingerie is typically made of too flimsy material for it to be practical.

Any man who considers giving lingerie to a woman romantic should be shot at Myself included.

It is depressing to see that despite the scientific and technological advances of the 21st century, people still want to live a fairytale existence. They are oblivious to hurting themselves, other people and society by coveting something that does not exist outside of Mills and Boon novels .

Yes, or the plain absurdity of society and its standards. For a lot of people love is a form of salvation (at least in their thoughts) of everyday drudgery. That also explains why they prefer to date in unrealistic settings. Simply not to be reminded of everyday drudgery. And can you blame them? With all our technological successes, the life style of the select view (Hollywood), the enormous productivity of our economy, and we are still dissatisfied and unhappy in a major way.

 

For other people love is more, which means no hidden agendas, no craving for the sensual. They are rare, but do exist. Societal imprinting is not completely succesful on everyone.

In Western society, people are raised to be more independent. If you want to be independent, why bind yourself to one half of a couple?

As it is technically speaking impossible to be independent in the Western world, what is the issue? You might have a job in the outskirts of Australia, but if the Dow Jones plummets 3% on one day, your job might not even be secure. Even if you work for a small company, you cannot have fundamental economic certainty. Let alone political certainty.

I don't see the reasoning behind this, because everyone knows that women, NOT men, make better people to discuss emotional problems and issues with. They listen better and are more sympathetic than men, which isn't exactly a PC opinion, but any psychologist will attest to the fact that women?s brains are wired to be more in touch with their emotional and nurturing side. So if a woman wants emotional support, she should seek that in her female friends, not a boyfriend. Relating on an emotional level is simply not encoded in the male DNA, which explains why men place far more importance on the physical relationship.

 

I think I might be defective then ? I always had my share of female friends talking with me about their relationships and issues. And I enjoyed talking to them about their problems, as I have been able to make things clearer to them, and help them understand their situations a lot better.

 

Surveys have shown that relationships benefit men much more than women. The consensus seems to be that men with partners are considerably healthier and live much longer than single men, but there is no dramatic increase in quality of life in partnered women.

Or, and this is what I believe: It only shows that single men have more unhealthy ways of living. Given the reality based jokes women can make about men and cleanliness, and the way a lot of male student flatrooms look like, I would go with my explanation.

 

Independence is always sacrificed in a relationship as time, energy and other resources are no longer solely yours. Persuaded by the sentimental nonsense of fairytales and Hollywood movies, many people in Western society regard lifelong romantic companionship with a member of the opposite sex, as their highest calling in life. It is ironic how our society promotes independence, yet expects people to become dependent on someone else later in life.

Idependence is an absurd concept in Western society; so bashing people giving away there independence is futile.

During an 'independent' period, people sow their wild oats, and given the sheer length of time they usually stay in this phase, it is ridiculous to expect someone to do a 180 degree turn and come to terms with the lost independence that accompanies a committed relationship

Might be true of many to have such a phase, but not for me. And even though I don't believe that people can do the whole 180 degrees turn, they can change a lot. Probably walk back in the circle for roughly 0.55*pi*r. There will be some positions that cannot be attained anymore because of past behavior. But that is only a minority of positions though.

The Western value system simply isn't conducive to lasting relationships. Therefore, the relationship should be an obsolete social institution. It is simply no longer necessary, or even viable.

The same is true for, for example a religious life-style. And I mean hardcore. Should we therefore have to abolish religion?

[tanbark813]

Aside from the chemical processes involved, I would say a lot of your assumptions are far-fetched at best. If romantic relationships are unnecessary for you, and therefore you cannot see yourself in one, then good for you. But just because they're not necessary from a survival and well-being standpoint, that doesn't mean they can't be fun or fulfilling, which I believe to be very good reasons for pursuing them.

[Fatal Femme]

Originally posted by moimeme

Zowie!

 

Congrats on the typing marathon!

I was surprised to find out that the character limit was 100000 but my post only reached a quarter of that - so there is still room for a lot more!

 

Originally posted by moimeme

There are lots of men who are very good at being caring and nurturing. I have heard that Australian men on the whole behave more 'macho' and thought that was only a generalization. Perhaps it's true, but if it is, I suggest it's societal rather than genetic.

I agree with this one Moimeme, some men are definitely very caring. Though I suppose it is true that men tend to be more 'macho' where I come from. It is mainly societal although biology may play a role, even if it's only a small role. From a psychological point of view, women's and men's brains are wired differently, and perhaps the 'emotional' faculties of the brain are more developed in the female brain.

 

Originally posted by moimeme

I don't know what, exactly, you mean by 'depend'. If you mean emotionally - well, nobody suggests that people don't need support systems; in fact it's accepted wisdom that support networks promote better health. The type of 'dependence' that people may scorn when adults depend on parents is the type which is caused by someone's refusal to grow up and take responsibility for his or her own life.

We are inherently social creatures and need social support systems, but unfortunately many people in relationships are very inward looking and only rely on each other as emotional support systems. They lose touch with their old friends and therefore have no support networks outside the relationship, just an unhealthy emotional dependence on each other.

 

There are different ways of depending on someone - emotionally, physically, financially etc. Adult dependence on parents isn't really of an emotional nature and does not necessarily stem from a refusal to accept responsibility. For example, where I come from, housing prices are ridiculously high considering the average person's income, resulting in quite a few people in their 20s still living at home. Maybe they are doing it because it is simply cheaper to stay at home. But people still see it as more desirable, and less embarrassing, to share living space with a partner than with parents.

 

Originally posted by moimeme

Some people find out that the partnership, companionship, and better sex life that results from knowing someone very well is far more rewarding than flitting from bed to bed for the sake of trying out new shapes and sizes of human.

Sadly these people seem to be far and few between. For the rest of the population, it seems that they are conditioned to crave variety and change in everything in life, including relationships. Jellybean has expressed it very well in the quote below.

 

Originally posted by jellybean

I myself have been doing alot of thinking in respect to the so-called sanctity of marriage...due to the high failure rate, I'm starting to believe that it's more like a joke, and the norm in Western society is to have a revolving door of lovers throughout your lifetime.

 

Originally posted by moimeme

You can be independent and still sacrifice and compromise.

True, the ideal is to have a balance between the two extremes. But it just happens to be that in Western societies, we are conditioned from quite a young age to fulfil OUR dreams and realize OUR potential, creating people with a very goal-oriented mentality. On the other hand, I have been on holiday to Asia recently, and have noticed that the people over there are not taught this way at all, but to do everything for the greater good of family and the wider community. External approval is very important, so they tend to be less likely to think of themselves when it comes to life choices, and hence more likely to compromise. I know I'm generalizing, but to some extent everyone is shaped by the society they live in, and Western society appears to focus more on ME, and non-Western society on THEM.

 

Originally posted by Thinkalot

I have read many such sentiments on this site before, against the western institution of marriage.

Really? Can you post URLs to some of these posts Thinkalot?

 

Originally posted by Thinkalot

While I would agree, a marriage based purely on romantic love may not survive...i do think there is a place for both romantic and companion (the more platonic, deeper kind of love, which revolves more around love of the person, and being their companion) love in a marriage. Romantic love, when added into the mix, can do wonders for keeping the relationship exciting, sexy, and fun. And what is wrong with that? Those things add to the enjoyment of life.

Yes, I suppose it could be seen as icing on the cake. The problem is though, many people ask for a cake made entirely of icing (by getting into relationships based purely on romance and nothing else).

 

Originally posted by Thinkalot

If he is having a stressful day at work, I sometimes send him flowers. It makes him feel special- it cheers him up.

Then you're with a very unique guy Thinkalot, most guys I know do not like flowers and I think it would be especially embarrassing for them to receive them at work! Must be the whole 'macho' imagery.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

The problem is not romantic relationships, but the expectancies people have concerning these, if you will stupidity. You might as well have written the whole thing, as a proposal to outlaw stupidity. Or at least to remove the clauses in the laws that state that at a certain age, you are considered an adult and are fully responsible for all your actions.

Good point D'Arthez, maybe the bigger problem is stupidity, rather than relationships themselves.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

For a lot of people love is a form of salvation (at least in their thoughts) of everyday drudgery. That also explains why they prefer to date in unrealistic settings. Simply not to be reminded of everyday drudgery.

...and then they become disappointed with the routine life that comes with a serious commitment such as marriage.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

I think I might be defective then ? I always had my share of female friends talking with me about their relationships and issues. And I enjoyed talking to them about their problems, as I have been able to make things clearer to them, and help them understand their situations a lot better.

That's good to hear - I think I might be a fellow defective Men's thought processes are thought to be more 'rational' and women's thought processes more 'intuitive', and I guess I prefer the practical approach over the excessively emotional nature of romance.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Idependence is an absurd concept in Western society; so bashing people giving away there independence is futile.

You mentioned earlier that economic factors like the Dow Jones plummeting may cause me to lose my job, so no one is independent in the true sense. Very technical way of looking at it, but true I suppose. I think the form of independence that Western society promotes though, is being able to stand on your own two feet and not rely on others all the time or be too attached to family, and doing as one pleases without regard as to what other people think. Is this what you regard as an absurd concept?

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

The same is true for, for example a religious life-style. And I mean hardcore. Should we therefore have to abolish religion?

No, we shouldn't have to abolish religion. Although I think to some extent it is already happening e.g. it is no longer considered appropriate or PC to display nativity scenes and other explicitly Christian imagery in some shops at Xmas time. And neither should we abolish relationships - maybe I went a bit too far in saying that they should be obsolete. Now that I think about it, people should still be entitled to have them if they please, but they shouldn't impose their way of life on others. There is a lot of pressure in society to get hitched once you reach a certain age, but while people are all too content to complain about preachy televangalists, missionaries etc, what gets to me is why people don't question the social forces that compel them to hook up. I think Hollywood is just as preachy in its pro-romance message than any missionary promoting their religion. In that a partner is prerequisite to paradise and singledom equates to hell and damnation.

[moimeme]

We are inherently social creatures and need social support systems, but unfortunately many people in relationships are very inward looking and only rely on each other as emotional support systems. They lose touch with their old friends and therefore have no support networks outside the relationship, just an unhealthy emotional dependence on each other.

 

That people may choose to live in unhealthy dependence isn't the flaw of relationships in general or even of society. It's how some people conduct their lives. Some of them eventually realize the dysfunctionality of what they are doing and others continue in their patterns. 'Dependence' is not a requirement of a relationship, at least, not any unhealthy sort.

 

Sadly these people seem to be far and few between. For the rest of the population, it seems that they are conditioned to crave variety and change in everything in life, including relationships.

 

I think your view is skewed. It's just that, often, the people who live their lives that way may be also more inclined to boast about it or flaunt it. Apparently, if you have sex with many people, you are assumed to enjoy it more than someone who has great sex with one person. It has ever been thus. We don't celebrate the people who stay married for fifty years; it's the Madonnas and the Warren Beattys who are admired for their alley cat ways.

 

Hollywood is just as preachy in its pro-romance message

 

Well it's not as though anyone has a vested interest in proselytizing. Nobody forces the tens of millions of romance novels into the shopping baskets of women. In fact, I have only rarely seen an ad for them but they fly off the shelves. People want to believe.

 

You see, you're also a product of Hollywood and fiction. I'm guessing you imagine a better time when people were more generous of spirit and marriages entailed more commitment, but there never really was such a time. It's as much a fiction as is the 'romance' you dislike so. So make your peace with the world as it is, choose your path, and find someone (or don't) who shares your worldview. No need to hope to change all of society. Last guy who tried it ended up nailed to some logs.

[CurlyIam]

Sorry, didn't have the patience to actually read all the posts not evn the first d'al cappo al fine.

 

I have lives the first 22 yearsof my life in Eastern Europe, so I'll tell you a bit about that:

 

I. Although my country does not profess convenience marriages, after getting married, at least during the communism, there was this huge pressure to say married. I REMIND you that the whole purpose of a marriage is to be happy together, not to end up together.

 

II. Divorced women were viewed a little bit better than tramps. Great status !! They were the one to usually get excluded from their cercle of friends as no "wife" would have "a unmarried woman" in her house.

 

III. Women were (and partly are) financially dependent on men. Had they been financially independent at least half of them would get a divorce.

 

IV. You have NO IDEA what's like to live in a mysoginist country with a mysogynist menthality. Drinking, cheating, ocassionally hitting the woman were all to be tolerated because the man would get the money home (then reverse from spending it all on other women, something not appreciated).

 

V. There are some great benefits still: I looked at the rates of female top managers and I can confirm you that my country is on the lead in Eastern Europe, and usually, women do have a a real chance in these countries to make it big time.

 

 

 

 

As for romance... please, it's a long time since I've heard so many platitutes all in one place. What you're oberving is called social evolution, and it's happeneing EVERYWHERE, not only in Western Europe, whether you like it or not.

 

 

No offence, but living in Western Europe definalety biased you big time as you do NOT appreciate what you have, the quality of life you lead and most importantly, the fact that you're free to make your own choice and not be blames, isolated, or face the possibility to become a social outcast!

 

 

As for romance... maybe indeed it's an outdated concept. I don't care about "romance". All care about id being happy and having a true and loving relationship with ONE man. What everybody else is doing it's their own businsess. Maybe they're also learning which mistakes to avoid.

 

 

I somehow think it's normal not to be all gurus whn it comes to love. Meanon once said that we all want to be loved unconditionally but we love with conditions.

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by d'Arthez

For a lot of people love is a form of salvation (at least in their thoughts) of everyday drudgery. That also explains why they prefer to date in unrealistic settings. Simply not to be reminded of everyday drudgery.

 

...and then they become disappointed with the routine life that comes with a serious commitment such as marriage.

Most often that seems the case. Whether poor or rich, it does not make much of a difference in that regard. Another serious commitment is the decision to 'have' children. 50 years ago it was not much different though.

 

With a lot of marriages nowadays ending in divorce, the resulting situation with children involved is often far from ideal. Visitation problems to name but one. A lot of our social institutions are not working too well in this changed situation.

Originally posted by d'Arthez

I think I might be defective then ? I always had my share of female friends talking with me about their relationships and issues. And I enjoyed talking to them about their problems, as I have been able to make things clearer to them, and help them understand their situations a lot better.

 

That's good to hear - I think I might be a fellow defective Men's thought processes are thought to be more 'rational' and women's thought processes more 'intuitive', and I guess I prefer the practical approach over the excessively emotional nature of romance.

I can be extremely rational, to the point of the absurd. Rationality without intuitivity is rather limited. There are more forms of rationality than one, just as there are more valid forms of logic.

 

People differ in their preferences, regarding how to approach relationships and courting. There is nothing wrong with that. A sensible young man or woman, can court in a romantic way, without being overly excessive, without making the absurd mistakes of 'romantic' thought, which you criticize. If you are familiar with the thoughts of the highly conservative Romantic Era (19th century), you will see that all the flaws of the thoughts of that Era, are still the signs which are considered signs of loving by a lot of people in the 21st century.

 

Say for example I am interested in working towards a relationship in the future with a somewhat traditional girl. I would need in all probability a different approach to win her over, than when I would work for the same with a modern no-nonsense woman who is dedicated to her career.

Of course the whole courting thing would be pointless if I had to put up an air of a quality. If I am dumb but act around as if I was intelligent, I would only set myself and the woman involved for a lot of pains and misery.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Idependence is an absurd concept in Western society; so bashing people giving away there independence is futile.

You mentioned earlier that economic factors like the Dow Jones plummeting may cause me to lose my job, so no one is independent in the true sense. Very technical way of looking at it, but true I suppose. I think the form of independence that Western society promotes though, is being able to stand on your own two feet and not rely on others all the time or be too attached to family, and doing as one pleases without regard as to what other people think. Is this what you regard as an absurd concept?

We always depend on other people, and actions of other people. And there is no control over that.

 

Formally Western society promotes independence. But, if you agree that a lot the problems you describe are not about romantic relationships per se, but about stupidity, one has to wonder, why so many people are stupid with regards to these issues. You cannot blame the biological make-up of human beings for all the relationship mistakes they make.

 

But to become 'independent' one has to depend first on others and learn.

It has a lot to do with the way we are socialized as human beings. A lot of girls nowadays believe they have to 'dress' as the female dancers in clips (MTV) to attract a man. And simply don't have a clue why these man want to have sex with them, but no relationships. Not to say that every girl makes the same mistake of course.

A few of my female friends suffer from the "disorder" of high intelligence. A lot of men are unable to handle that. Talk about fragile egos! But where does it leave these women? They deserve to be loved too, and they have a lot to give in a relationship.

 

And of course, everybody believes he or she is an individual. And has acquired his or her thought by his or her own conscious thought processes. Which happen to be the same of most other people. They don't see they took over societal norms and standards. Most often through the family unit they grew up in.

 

Often it seems the case, that people who are reluctant to call themselves 'independent', 'individual', or even 'religious', are most true to the respective ideals.

Originally posted by d'Arthez

The same is true for, for example a religious life-style. And I mean hardcore. Should we therefore have to abolish religion?

No, we shouldn't have to abolish religion. Although I think to some extent it is already happening e.g. it is no longer considered appropriate or PC to display nativity scenes and other explicitly Christian imagery in some shops at Xmas time. And neither should we abolish relationships - maybe I went a bit too far in saying that they should be obsolete. Now that I think about it, people should still be entitled to have them if they please, but they shouldn't impose their way of life on others. There is a lot of pressure in society to get hitched once you reach a certain age, but while people are all too content to complain about preachy televangalists, missionaries etc, what gets to me is why people don't question the social forces that compel them to hook up. I think Hollywood is just as preachy in its pro-romance message than any missionary promoting their religion. In that a partner is prerequisite to paradise and singledom equates to hell and damnation.

I can agree with most of that. Although Christmas is not a religious event anymore in most Western countries. It's about the presents. It's commercialized to such an extent that the religious meaning of the event is completely lost upon many people.

 

The truly religious person does not ask for a conversion, to anyone. Hollywood does not, if you look at it from a formal point of view. But the imagery is suggestive. Maybe not on the conscious level, but certainly on the subconscious level. And subconscious ideas are more powerful and more difficult to discern.

[CurlyIam]

Originally posted by d'Arthez

A lot of our social institutions are not working too well in this changed situation.

Well, since our behaviour does involve a lot on irrational aspects, I think it's only to be expected.

 

 

If I am dumb but act around as if I was intelligent, I would only set myself and the woman involved for a lot of pains and misery.

If you're inlove and think she's the one with the big O you'd be surprised at the quantity of stupid things you'd be inclined to do.

 

 

Formally Western society promotes independence. But, if you agree that a lot the problems you describe are not about romantic relationships per se, but about stupidity, one has to wonder, why so many people are stupid with regards to these issues. You cannot blame the biological make-up of human beings for all the relationship mistakes they make.

 

What else is there? What else clouds our minds? What else prevents us from seeing straight into reality and our hearts? You call it stupidity, I call it a chamical reaction in your brain that overtakes your common sense. I won't go as far as calling it that, though.

 

A few of my female friends suffer from the "disorder" of high intelligence. A lot of men are unable to handle that. Talk about fragile egos! But where does it leave these women? They deserve to be loved too, and they have a lot to give in a relationship.

Yeah well, ugly people deserve to be loved too, just like intelligent women. What's your theory regarding that? People always fear whatever goes out of norms, whather physically or intelectually.

 

 

And neither should we abolish relationships - maybe I went a bit too far in saying that they should be obsolete. Now that I think about it, people should still be entitled to have them if they please, but they shouldn't impose their way of life on others.

Riiiight, somebody should call Mr. Bush! We all do that. Whether we realise it or not!

 

There is a lot of pressure in society to get hitched once you reach a certain age, but while people are all too content to complain about preachy televangalists, missionaries etc, what gets to me is why people don't question the social forces that compel them to hook up. I think Hollywood is just as preachy in its pro-romance message than any missionary promoting their religion. In that a partner is prerequisite to paradise and singledom equates to hell and damnation.

 

Both Church and Hollywood have paterns that they impose. However those patterns couln't be more different. What's the Hollywoodian one? Having a bf and a gf in the same time? Having your first kid when you're 50? Hard to say. Those people sell beauty and youth. I doubt they sell a social role.

 

 

The truly religious person does not ask for a conversion, to anyone. Hollywood does not, if you look at it from a formal point of view. But the imagery is suggestive. Maybe not on the conscious level, but certainly on the subconscious level. And subconscious ideas are more powerful and more difficult to discern

.

 

I couldn't agree more if you mean body shape. Hollywood made the market for losing weight explode the last 5 years.I couldn't agree more if you mean clothes or single behaviour. As far as relationship goes, I doubt there's a model. To me, Hollywood success is having a beatiful woman at your side. It doesn't mean it has to be the same woman!

[d'Arthez]

Well, since our behaviour does involve a lot on irrational aspects, I think it's only to be expected.

True, but the fact that the institutions are not evolving fast enough is a matter which concerns me more and more. More and more people are having children in different marriages, and with all the visitation rules et cetera, it becomes almost absurd to have these children in private care. Think of a man and a woman, each married twice and had kids twice before they met (for their 3rd marriage). It could become a daytime job of moving the kids around for the visitation agreements.

 

If you're inlove and think she's the one with the big O you'd be surprised at the quantity of stupid things you'd be inclined to do.

I have been, and did not. I might have to add, that I did consider some stupid things, according to my standards. However to most people they would have been normal, not even a desperate attempt.

 

What else is there? What else clouds our minds? What else prevents us from seeing straight into reality and our hearts? You call it stupidity, I call it a chamical reaction in your brain that overtakes your common sense. I won't go as far as calling it that, though.

The thing is with a biological explanation, which I don't buy, it does not explain too much. Some people become stalkers because of love, others smother the object of desire with attention et cetera. Then we have the bad boys and the nice guys, and their respective behaviors. Why do these different patterns arise? And why can they be accurately predicted at the infancy stage without any neurochemical explanation?

 

Yeah well, ugly people deserve to be loved too, just like intelligent women. What's your theory regarding that? People always fear whatever goes out of norms, whather physically or intelectually.

True. Especially with regards to ugly people, who are sometimes driven to suicide, or anorexia and boulimia (sp?). As far as I know 21st century cultural patterns have a strong part in that.

 

The thing is, concerning intelligence, men seem predisposed to look for a somewhat less intelligent woman. Which is of course a double standard. How did it come into existence? Again a psychological-evolutional explanation does not explain much, if anything at all.

 

But it makes no sense to judge a person on basis of looks alone, nor does it make sense to say: "Woman, you have a career and are more intelligent than I am, you are too good for me."

 

The fact is that a large part of all the people do. And again, a biological explanation won't do. Because otherwise all the men / women would be going after the same partners, which is not the case. Furthermore, because we are a cultured species, we should be able to understand that looks are not everything. And, as these are not convincing arguments in themselves, why do people subscribe to the double standards, which they say to reject to apply themselves: "It's not the looks, but the inside that counts?" Because it sounds better? Because one appears to be a better human because of that statement?

 

Sadly we see people spend a lot of time and try a lot of relationships before they find out the truth of the statement, and stop using it as a double standard to glorify themselves.

 

Both Church and Hollywood have paterns that they impose. However those patterns couln't be more different. What's the Hollywoodian one? Having a bf and a gf in the same time? Having your first kid when you're 50? Hard to say. Those people sell beauty and youth. I doubt they sell a social role.

The joke is, that because of the total opposition of the patterns, they are selling the same pattern. Do whatever you desire now, it is always right. Is it?

[ReluctantRomeo]

Originally posted by CurlyIam

No offence, but living in Western Europe definalety biased you big time as you do NOT appreciate what you have, the quality of life you lead and most importantly, the fact that you're free to make your own choice and not be blames, isolated, or face the possibility to become a social outcast!

 

They're Australians, Canadians and Americans, CurlyIam. You and I are the Europeans here...

[d'Arthez]

Yes ReluctantRomeo, but Western-Europe is more similar to the USA and Canada and Australia, than the former Eastern-Europe. She has had 22 years of life experience under Communist rule, in whichever country that was.

 

I have a Bulgarian friend, and he told me the same things. And the sad thing is, she pointed out very accurately how these different societies regarded women. And probably the position of women in these countries is still nowhere near what it is in Western-Europe.

[moimeme]

A few of my female friends suffer from the "disorder" of high intelligence. A lot of men are unable to handle that. Talk about fragile egos! But where does it leave these women? They deserve to be loved too, and they have a lot to give in a relationship.

 

ROTFL!!! That's great! A 'disorder' LOL. You're absolutely right, though. Damn it.

 

Yeah well, ugly people deserve to be loved too, just like intelligent women. What's your theory regarding that? People always fear whatever goes out of norms, whather physically or intelectually.

 

Funny you should say that. Exceedingly beautiful people can have huge quantities of trouble having relationships. Gorgeous humans may have many more suitors and perhaps attract people more easily to start with, but that doesn't mean their relationships are any better or longer-lasting. Just look at Hollywood. And this whole 'ugly' thing is craziness. Sure, some people may not be thought 'beautiful' by everyone, but inevitably there are a few people who appreciate your looks. I'm no model - far from it LOL, but I have been called 'beautiful' by several people; many who had no reason to be buttering me up. I have been called it by people just being nice, too, but it was sweet. Look at Danny DeVito. I remember Rhea Perlman being asked what it was that she fell for in him. Her reply? 'LOOK at him - he's gorgeous'

 

Formally Western society promotes independence. But, if you agree that a lot the problems you describe are not about romantic relationships per se, but about stupidity, one has to wonder, why so many people are stupid with regards to these issues. You cannot blame the biological make-up of human beings for all the relationship mistakes they make.

 

You have to live a while to understand how life works. Even the brightest of people make really dumbheaded mistakes when it comes to 'love'. There are studies that show that the chemicals that get set in motion when you 'fall in love' actually impair cognitive processes! So, yes, we are certainly prone to being swept up by biology. And most people don't realize it so they believe their feelings are real. This isn't 'stupidity' as much as it is lack of experience and information. Some people eventually figure out the difference between love and infatuation. Others never do - maybe because you have to have felt the difference to know what it is and if you never have, you can't possibly understand. Even if you read the most brilliant relationship advice, you still may not genuinely understand about what love is until you've experienced the real thing.

 

The thing is with a biological explanation, which I don't buy, it does not explain too much. Some people become stalkers because of love, others smother the object of desire with attention et cetera. Then we have the bad boys and the nice guys, and their respective behaviors. Why do these different patterns arise? And why can they be accurately predicted at the infancy stage without any neurochemical explanation?

 

Why should there not be a neurochemical explanation? It would be the only explanation. Why can't they be predicted at infancy? Because we are also products of our experiences, and experiences can 'teach' people how to behave - including how to behave dysfunctionally. Take someone who has not received enough love (or no love) from parents. They may embark on a lifelong dysfunctional quest to be loved even though they understand what they are doing may be foolish. We have intellect, yes, and we can use it, but the limbic brain evolved before reason did and still often trumps reason. If it didn't, nobody would be fat, nobody would smoke, nobody would sleep with dozens of people in order to feel liked and accepted.

[d'Arthez]

Moimeme, it might be predicted with neurological tests, if someone has a potential for stalking, or other obsessive behavior. The problem is, of course that when we start a relationship, or want to start a relationship with someone we don't go to the neurochemical research center to get ourselves tested for compatibility and red flag potential.

So we have to rely on the cues their (and our) behavior gives. Sadly, a lot of people are bad at reading behavior, even without the hormonal and cognitive imbalances caused by infatuation.

[moimeme]

The problem is, of course that when we start a relationship, or want to start a relationship with someone we don't go to the neurochemical research center to get ourselves tested for compatibility and red flag potential.

 

Sure would be a great business, no?

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by moimeme

Sure would be a great business, no?

 

Yes moimeme. But where would that leave the romance?

 

Imagine:

"No, my level of lust chemicals is not high enough for me to have sex with you", or

"OMG My oxytocin levels are at xx. And your bonding chemicals? Let's get married!"

[moimeme]

Yes moimeme. But where would that leave the romance?

 

ROTFL!!! This whole thread is a diatribe against 'romance' as it's constructed by pop culture. I didn't see you supporting 'romance' as a real smart way to make choices for lifetimes.

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by moimeme

ROTFL!!! This whole thread is a diatribe against 'romance' as it's constructed by pop culture. I didn't see you supporting 'romance' as a real smart way to make choices for lifetimes.

 

True. But could the population at large be convinced to give up the whole notion of romance, in favor of neurochemical testing?

 

Or even in more advanced forms, could it lead to DNA-matching of potential future and suitable partners? We could see a future then with arranged marriages, or similar arrangements. Including maybe group-matching for the people who prefer to try more than 1 partner.

 

I only wonder what the lyrics would be to the newer pop songs then ...

[moimeme]

Reel in the theorizing, boy! It needn't be that drastic!

[Fatal Femme]

Originally posted by moimeme

I think your view is skewed. It's just that, often, the people who live their lives that way may be also more inclined to boast about it or flaunt it. Apparently, if you have sex with many people, you are assumed to enjoy it more than someone who has great sex with one person. It has ever been thus. We don't celebrate the people who stay married for fifty years; it's the Madonnas and the Warren Beattys who are admired for their alley cat ways.

Very true, it goes to show that popular culture promotes an alley cat lifestyle. No wonder lasting marriages are so far and few between these days - there are hardly any social forces that encourage this way of life (except for religion, whose influence is dying in Western society by the minute)

 

Originally posted by CurlyIam

No offence, but living in Western Europe definalety biased you big time as you do NOT appreciate what you have, the quality of life you lead and most importantly, the fact that you're free to make your own choice and not be blames, isolated, or face the possibility to become a social outcast!

There is good and bad in every culture and society. Sure, we might have more freedom in the English speaking world, but there is always someone that abuses a good thing. At least there is no culture of rampant gun violence in Eastern Europe, unlike in America where school shootings are common, so at least you can feel safer in your day to day life. Sorry to hear that your culture is misogynistic, but I've noticed that among the immigrant communities in Australia (they come from Eastern Europe and many other parts of the world), marriages tend to be more stable and the couples are extremely committed to each other. Perhaps us Westerners have something to learn from them in this regard.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

But, if you agree that a lot the problems you describe are not about romantic relationships per se, but about stupidity, one has to wonder, why so many people are stupid with regards to these issues. You cannot blame the biological make-up of human beings for all the relationship mistakes they make.

No, we cannot blame it all on simple biology. The biological makeup of humans has been pretty much the same since the Stone Age, but serial divorces only became common and widely acceptable in the Western world since the second half of the 20th century. Maybe the increased access to media has converted people into stupidity, with popular culture propagating ridiculously stupid ideals.

 

Originally posted by CurlyIam

Both Church and Hollywood have paterns that they impose. However those patterns couln't be more different. What's the Hollywoodian one? Having a bf and a gf in the same time? Having your first kid when you're 50? Hard to say. Those people sell beauty and youth. I doubt they sell a social role.

Hollywood sells many social roles, many of which are connected with sexual prowess and/or attractiveness (player, sex kitten etc). Perhaps in your country you don't have so much access to privately owned media, but in Western societies there are popular magazines advertising every sexual technique and position under the sun, how-to guides on picking up someone for a one-night stand etc, and these magazines can be found at every street corner.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

And again, a biological explanation won't do. Because otherwise all the men / women would be going after the same partners, which is not the case.

I agree that merely a biological explanation won't do, but I disagree that not all the men/women go after the same partners. Why are Pamela Anderson lookalike women guy magnets, while plain Janes do not have hundreds of men chasing them? I've heard somewhere that a very select group of 5% of males are coveted by 95% of females, and vice versa. The only reason why people look elsewhere is that the small elite group is somehow inaccessible to them (most likely as those people are already taken).

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Furthermore, because we are a cultured species, we should be able to understand that looks are not everything.

What a better place the world would be if that were true. But I've heard that it is encoded in the male DNA to find a partner who looks healthy enough to bear offspring (animal instincts again), hence the stereotypically male emphasis on female appearance. From this explanation, men are biologically conditioned to select a mate based on looks.

 

Originally posted by moimeme

Gorgeous humans may have many more suitors and perhaps attract people more easily to start with, but that doesn't mean their relationships are any better or longer-lasting.

Maybe it's getting to a point where it's more about the quantity than the quality....

 

Originally posted by moimeme

You have to live a while to understand how life works. Even the brightest of people make really dumbheaded mistakes when it comes to 'love'. There are studies that show that the chemicals that get set in motion when you 'fall in love' actually impair cognitive processes! So, yes, we are certainly prone to being swept up by biology. And most people don't realize it so they believe their feelings are real. This isn't 'stupidity' as much as it is lack of experience and information. Some people eventually figure out the difference between love and infatuation. Others never do - maybe because you have to have felt the difference to know what it is and if you never have, you can't possibly understand. Even if you read the most brilliant relationship advice, you still may not genuinely understand about what love is until you've experienced the real thing.

I too have read a few research articles that say 'love chemicals' impair cognitive processes - very interesting topic. I mostly agree with your views on the difference between love and infatuation. I say that too often, people fail to experience the real thing. Even though I still believe that stupidity plays a large role in some people's decisions.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Imagine:

"No, my level of lust chemicals is not high enough for me to have sex with you", or

"OMG My oxytocin levels are at xx. And your bonding chemicals? Let's get married!"

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Or even in more advanced forms, could it lead to DNA-matching of potential future and suitable partners? We could see a future then with arranged marriages, or similar arrangements. Including maybe group-matching for the people who prefer to try more than 1 partner.

What sort of DNA testing are you suggesting here? Is it based on inherent personality or neurological characteristics, or based on which combination of genes produces the most healthy offspring? I wouldn't support DNA matching of couples for the latter reason, as throughout the entire thread I have opposed couples getting together based on purely physical factors. On the other hand, if it's the former, then I wholeheartedly agree - perhaps many incompatible marriages will be averted in the first place if the partners neurologically match.

 

I've heard somewhere that for many people who are prone to having affairs, it's in their genetic makeup. Like they need a consistently high dose of lust chemicals in their bodies, which can be only experienced with the novelty of a new relationship, hence their behaviour. Perhaps DNA testing can be used to group-match these people for open relationships. At least there will be no expectations of monogamy or exclusivity in any of the parties.

[moimeme]

but serial divorces only became common and widely acceptable in the Western world since the second half of the 20th century. Maybe the increased access to media has converted people into stupidity, with popular culture propagating ridiculously stupid ideals.

 

IMHO, you're making a fatal error in logic here. That people remained married in large numbers prior to the latter half of this century did NOT mean they were in loving pair bonds. There were countless marriages which continued in misery because people felt they must remain married or because the women had no chance to earn enough money to raise children on her own. Do you realize that it's only recently that a woman could own her own credit card without having to have the man's signature on it? Women had very few financial rights and were, and remain, chronically paid less than men for similar work. Besides, women who divorced were considered skanks.

 

Women were forced to remain in abusive marriages because decent people either were unable to believe that men abused women; in other cases, they figured the woman 'must have done something to deserve the abuse'. Women were also literally considered as chattels of men, meaning that they could be punished by men if the men so desired. And still, women who left were considered sluts. Social mores kept people in marriages, yes, but that was NOT a good thing. Sure, my aunt remained married to my uncle for the remainder of his life, but he drank every night and though, thankfully, he wasn't abusive, she lived in a chaste marriage all that time. Is that your idea of ideal society?

 

popular magazines advertising every sexual technique and position under the sun

 

And your problem with that is?

 

I've heard somewhere that a very select group of 5% of males are coveted by 95% of females, and vice versa.

 

Don't believe everything you 'read somewhere'. Be sure you're dealing with credible information which has been supported by several good studies.

 

The only reason why people look elsewhere is that the small elite group is somehow inaccessible to them

 

Bogus. Sorry but that's just craziness. Again, the assumption is that beauty and wealth means that the beautiful wealthy person would also be an ideal mate. If that were the case, Hollywood's beautiful wealthy people would lock each other up and remain married forever. They go through more relationships than regular folks. Sure, their beauty and wealth means more people (the ones who are fooled by the beauty and wealth at first) are after them, but once they land them, they don't stay long.

 

Lots of people eventually figure out that character is what makes the ideal mate. Yes, there is a chunk of the population that lives superficially, but not everybody's that way and plenty folks manage to get it right after bungling through a few mistakes and learning their lessons.

[emopunk]

Ah yes... the concept of romance in the 21st century. Nearly all of the points in your dissertation have been stated time and again in a variety of forums here at LS. Perhaps not quite as inclusively as what you have presented.

 

I will agree that things have changed through the centuries from the birth of chivalry. However I will, as most who know me will attest, vehemently deny that romance is a fallacy of human nature. Contrarily, I will say that it is the core of human nature.

 

Romance in and of itself is perhaps the single hardest concept to grasp in modern society, aside from numerous religious beliefs. There is very fundamental difference between what is classified as romance and what is defined as courtship. Courtship is, by definition, a universal phenomenon present in all non-asexual living animals. Courtship is based on reproduction. Insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, humans... we all have that base need to procreate. Pheromones, due to their ability to change, simply alert others of sibling species that they are currently capable of engaging in reproduction.

 

But that alone is not enough even for the most basic of animals. Have you ever been privy to a beta when it seeks to meet? Or a praying mantis? Or a parakeet? Or a cat? These animals have natural traits that "show off" their genetics; the colorful plumes of birds and fish that otherwise remain hidden; the physical agility and strength of deer; the siren call of a cat; the changing color of insects. Why do they have these traits? To woo a mate. To distinguish themselves from all the others out there. Many animals also establish domains. Lions seek out the most lush areas. The most powerful ones have domains that can support a great number females and cubs.

 

Humans are the same way. Women wear revealing clothing to show off their figure, or wear perfume (some supposedly pheromone enhanced,) or apply copious amounts of make-up to attract men. They may go out to dance clubs. Men try bulk up, wear tight shirts, adorn themselves with shiny objects. Humans will pierce themselves in odd places, tan, dye their hair, change their appearance artificially, seek to own expensive objects... why? To impress others. To make themselves more desirable to others.

 

Any of this sound familiar?

 

All that is courtship. Here's where humans differentiate themselves from the rest of the species on Earth. We add an element heretofore unknown in the world... intellect. In this instance I do not use intellect to imply intelligence, simple to reference the human psyche. We have minds capable of truly astounding things. Many are beneficial to us and to the race as a whole. Many are not. What humanity has added is the idea that someone's mind can be just as appealing to others. And appealing to someone's mind is far more difficult than the physical. I believe that at heart, most people can detect the superficial. They may not want to, but they are capable of it. Anyone can bulk up or tone down, learn new skills, dress a certain way, smell a certain way, own certain things... anyone can. Which is exactly why courtship based on those aspects is so utterly ineffective and prone to outright failure.

 

And this is where most people go wrong: They believe they can love someone without knowing the person. How quickly can really learn of someone? It could take years, and probably will. The most lasting relationships I have ever encountered had their beginnings in friendship. These were people that could get along perfectly well with each other. They may have had differences and even conflicts, but they had the understanding to work through it. They had a basic love for each other that made communicating effective. The truth of the matter is that they were not in fact "opposites."

 

Think about this for a moment: how similar to you are your friends? They may have certain differences from you. They may even have the occasional diametrically opposing view on a topic. But as a whole, are they really that different from you? Lasting friendships generally consist of two people who agree on more than they disagree on. It's the same basic view on something, just from a different perspective. This is not a close-minded concept. Humans, just like animals, tend to congregate together based on similar needs or ideas. It's nature.

 

Love has been lost in this day and age. It has been replaced with the far more animalistic lust. Lust is seeking the person who looks the best/has the most elaborate possesions/has the highest status. Lust is the manifestation of the animal in us all. Lust is not the right base to build a relationship from. Ultimately, it is destined to failure. It has no firm foundation on which to subsist. It's like building a tower on swamp. It may last for years, but eventually it will fall. The irony is that lust is also a vital part of love. Lust for the person you love is the intense desire to know that person in every way; to quite literally experience that person in all their glory.

 

Romance is far and away a different concept. The problem is, common understanding of romance is dreadfully inaccurate. Romance is not buying pretty, yet fleeting, items to "show your love." Romance is not sitting down to an elaborate candle-lit dinner in a prestigious restaurant. Romance is not going on exotic vacations for a week to enjoy a "storybook" love. Romance is not any of these, yet it may contain these. It so very much more.

 

Romance is opening your heart and mind to someone. It's about letting another person into your world. Letting them see the "real you", exposing them to the very fiber of your being, baring your soul to them. Romance is the outward expression of love. Love is not just something that you feel or do. Love is something that you live.

 

Romance is letting your heart and soul and mind flow onto paper. Romance is hearing the sound of your love and recording. Romance is painting a picture of how you see your love. Romance is waking up early to put on coffee and make breakfast before your love wakes up. Romance is leaving a quick "I love you" on your love's voicemail. Romance is getting a call from your love about a bad day, going home early and cooking them a nice dinner and pampering them that evening. Romance is getting a card for no reason in the mail that simply says "I love you." Romance is holding hands as you walk down a crowded street. Romance is holding hands as you watch a movie. Romance is a kiss from your love while you're doing the dishes, repairing something, or painting something. Romance is a flower presented to your love that you grew just for that purpose. Romance is expressing your love every day in little ways. Romance is simply letting your love flow forth from your heart.

 

So I will close by saying that romance is no myth. If romance is a myth, then love itself is a farce. And love does exist. Unfortunately, those who cling to "old ideas of chivalry" and "archaic ideals of romance" are dying out. The modern world sees no need to conduct itself using those concepts as guidelines. That's the truth behind the hopeless romantic; they live their lives by a code that is in decline. So much so, that the chances of finding someone else who follows that code is nearly hopeless. They are children born to the wrong generation. And they are dying out. Food for though: As the code dies as each of us who follow it dies, and as society continues to turn from our beliefs... Divorce rises, domestic violence rises, murder rises, suicide rises... Is it possible that there is connection?