So… for those of you who are not yet aware, here’s a summary: I managed to land a job in Hawaii, I moved here roughly three weeks ago and have been unnecessarily busy getting temporary logistics and job-related rigmarole worked out… and that’s where I am/have been. Sarah will be moving here in late July or so, once she finishes college and the cats’ quarantine window opens. Hawaii doesn’t play.
As such, I’ve been way too distracted to be angry at or insightful about anything; so here’s a long-winded and vaguely poignant treatise I wrote a few weeks ago to help out Sarah on something she was doing for school. Her resulting paper was excellent, but I fear it may have fallen upon deaf ears; ironically, students in Communications classes seem to be those individuals who are least interested in hearing the ideas of others. And they chew their gum with their mouths open, belying an intelligence not dissimilar from many other ruminant mammals. Please note for the record that this was an excellent opportunity to use the meme “sheeple” and I exhibited remarkable restraint for a writer/satirist/philosopher of my modest caliber. I hope this can somehow begin to make up for my incredibly tasteless use of the “Sally and Mindy Super-Hottie” metaphor back in the day. Enjoy!
In order to keep a relationship durable, it helps to remain consistent within oneself throughout the duration of a relationship. The reason why friendships that grow into romance are so enduring is that – in general – both people were actually being themselves when they got to know each other. This is much, much more rare than most people would care to believe – or admit. Most people looking for a relationship are intentionally playing a part; they act like the person they believe will be most likely to secure a relationship. While this can help begin a relationship, it can paradoxically be one of the biggest reasons for a relationship ending, particularly if the other person in the relationship wasn’t being fake.
Complexity is both a side-effect and a consequence of humanity’s evolution; the staggering array of ways in which our brains enable us to act is responsible for both our early biological success and our more modern psychological neuroticism. Neuroticism – both that of the individual and that of larger groups, to include entire societies – derives from conflicts of complexity. Much of this conflict is self-imposed in an attempt to meet needs – both biological and applied – within an ethical or moral framework that may have no regard whatsoever for those needs. As such, people may actively become deceptive in order to meet their needs within the context of a morality hostile towards those needs. The result is an extremely common phenomenon called cognitive dissonance, the conscious or unconscious holding of two incompatible opinions simultaneously. While this is an uncomfortable – even painful – feeling for people of integrity, most of the population aren’t afflicted with that particular problem. When caught out, people simply rationalize or lie to protect their own mentalities.
This relates to dating in that people are biologically driven to mate. This drive is so strong that it can be safely classified as a need, and people will adjust their behavior accordingly. This means that people who perceive themselves to be less than perfect (so… the entirety of human civilization) will try to change the way they are perceived if they believe that doing so will help them to meet their needs. So when actively dating, a person will tend to exhibit varying degrees of differing personality than their normal, ground state personality. This is done in the name of securing a mate… but the key word in that phrase is “securing”. While still dating, the social structure assigned to the dating relationship is one of mild insecurity; any of the involved parties to the relationship can terminate the relationship relatively freely, and for relatively little reason. Thus, a person one is merely dating is not really “secured”; so one has a large incentive to continue whatever actions seemed to have attracted the mate in the first place.
Marriage, however, does act to “secure” a mate, particularly one of conscience. While being married can often create a more fulfilling relationship, this is heavily dependant upon the involved parties continuing to be satisfied with the relationship. A large part of this satisfaction derives from the married individuals continuing to act in ways that please their partners – to be “in love”, from society’s perspective. As seems to be much more common nowadays, once the marriage is fairly solid, an individual that attracted their mate through personality adaption become less inclined to continue the effort of, essentially, being fake; the incentive is now to return to the normal, ground state personality now that the mate commodity has been secured… or is “owned”, in the context of society’s perception of marriage. The perceived ownership leads to a devaluing of the partner as less is now needed to be done to ensure continued partnership. Particularly from the point of view of a partner who has NOT mischaracterized themselves, this decline in affection is most often perceived as a lessening of love with no perceptible cause. This change from dating behavior to “married behavior” is a huge contributor to marriage dissatisfaction and divorce rate.
The easiest way to avoid this loss of love is to not mischaracterize oneself in the first place… but far too many people worry that doing so would make it harder to attract a mate. While this is true, it must be weighed against the potential of finding an actual soulmate – someone who loves you as you are. But regardless of one’s desire for a soulmate, acquiring one through deception destroys the very definition of a soulmate. Within the context of marriage and society, being unable to attract a mate is a gigantic risk, as monogamy creates an artificial scarcity of quality mates; the fear is always that if I fail to attract my ideal mate today, someone else will grab them up tomorrow and they’ll be lost to me forever. Therefore, the vast, vast majority of people are willing to risk long-term happiness if it will help them get a mate at all.
What implication does this carry for society as it currently stands? I sincerely doubt the structure of marriage will change to address people’s needs… so the people themselves will have to change. The people will have to determine whether the effort involved in continuing to exhibit attractive behaviors to their partner is worth the happiness they receive from being in a relationship with that partner. In the search for happiness, one should ask oneself whether they have changed the way they act since the relationship began… a significant change from the person your partner fell in love with may be causing your partner dissatisfaction. Love – true, soulmate-style love – would not be content with causing harm to one’s partner through dissatisfaction. The only balm would be a return to the original, dating-level personality; such a thing is only possible if dating levels of affection and value towards one’s partner still exist.