Relationships

Back with a vengeance to celebrate yet another financial year, and of course another fat cheque from the Australian Taxation Office. Herein lies a thesis-length foray to kick off Fiscal 2007. I was hoping Amoxil would cure insomnia, but I think this’ll be much better.

I’ve recently had a quite a few interesting conversations that have led me to start constructing hypotheses on the nature of relationships. What constitutes a good relationship, why do seemingly adverse relationships persist, what factors determine the existence and level of a relationship?

As with all entries on similar topics, attach what significance you will. Having not been involved in a vis-à-vis relationship to date, there is obvious limitation because my understanding does not arise through personal experience. Rather it is borne from conversations with friends and field observations. Notwithstanding the fact this entry is weighted toward instinct over practice, it has the advantage of being relatively more objective lending to the author’s stance as an outsider.

M1 FRAMEWORK

Before even touching on the abyssal topic of relationships, it’s a prerequisite to define a classification range for people. I hold it out to all who care that I am not particularly partial to the works of Dan Brown, however I have chosen the continuum between masculinity and femininity as a proxy for the ‘classification range’ on basis of simplicity.

M1.1 The Continuum

We need to first make the distinction that the male-female continuum is absolute in linearity. You will find that certain concepts of ‘continuum’ are actually circular, such as pure fascism and pure communism, or indeed genius and insanity. The scale that ranges between masculine and feminine is very black and white, and each end has its associated behavioural traits, given by neural biochemistry and psychology. We holistically attach these to testosterone and a left-hemisphere dominance for the male, and oestrogen/progesterone and a right-hemisphere dominance for the female. An annotated representation of the continuum is depicted below.

In defining the two extremes, our macho man (Chuck Norris) is set at 0, whilst our girly girl (Paris Hilton) is set at 10. I need not say anything more about these two other than express pity for that poor dog in the picture and give the requisite warning that guns don’t kill people, Chuck Norris does.

M1.2 The Scale of Numbers

With the context of the extremes set, we can now move to examine relationships using the numbers 0 to 10 on the scale above as a framework. Seeing as Chuck and Paris are the extremes, it is naturally inherent and therefore entirely reasonable to assume that most men are between 1 and 3, and most women between 7 and 9. These two ranges typify customary masculinity and femininity. Though they are largely exogenous to this analysis, Zeroes and tens are out there and they tend to be quite memorable characters.

4-5 for men and 5-6 for women is the region of pseudo-androgyny, where the person is still dominated by traits of their gender, but possesses a higher degree of traits that are usually attributable to the opposite gender, take perhaps a female CEO (authoritarianism is denoted virile) or a male nurse (compassion is denoted effeminate). Note occupational pigeonholing is purely for illustrative purposes.

Lastly we have the concept of ‘crossover’ which is a 6 or higher man, or a 4 or lower woman. It is a source of intrigue that (a) this contravenes natural order and hence (b) social perception denigrates these people. What I am alluding to here of course is the automatic tagging of ‘dyke’ and ‘poofter’ for said females and males respectively. Notionally, there is crossover where a female exhibits consistent patterns of male behaviour and character or vice-versa.

M1.3 Principles of Matching

The expectation is that there should be some logic to the scale of numbers, i.e. that low numbered males go hand-in-hand with high numbered females, the numbers of a ‘good’ couple add to 10, or any kind of arbitrary yet horizontally consistent ‘matching’ pattern for that matter.

Here comes the absurd reality – this scale has zero explanatory power when it comes to deciphering relationships. It operates on a plain that is at best bizarre and at worse utterly dysfunctional. The problem of course is that the scale proxies a single dimension for all aspects of a relationship, mental, emotional and physical.

This brings me to the exact reason why ‘younger’ relationships between the likes of arrogant and chauvinistic “that’s sick ‘re” type males and materialistic “oh, comfort and modesty are sooooo last century” type females can exist and persist. Put simply, during the ‘experimental’ age band spanning 15 to perhaps 20 years or more, the vast majority of relationships are founded on physical grounds due to relatively low levels of emotional development. At such an age, there is little – if any understanding of the concept of love. Further, there is a dominating kurtosis toward the Neanderthal and Drama Queen Phenotype extremes (young people tend to exemplify the extremes due to hormone levels).

Of course, learning being a wonderful ability of the human species, we gradually discover that love is more than a pretty face, personality and a good sense of humour. Generally, women tend to figure it out about age 22, and men about 25 (if at all) that they need something more. This something will almost certainly be a ‘connection’ with the other person; most commonly viewed as intellectual and emotional compatibility.

I propose that the gradual development of maturity with respect to relationships is actually a convergence toward the mean or centre of the abovementioned scale. Logically, if you’ve got a y chromosome, you begin near 0, and if you don’t, then you start in the vicinity of 10. Emotional maturity entails being able to communicate effectively in the frame of a relationship, and as we grow older, we migrate away from the extremes as we learn from experience and gain better understanding of the opposite sex. I will acknowledge this intuition is generalist, for some do not converge, period and remain on an extreme into old age – the theory is far from perfect, but it holds from a big-picture perspective.

The source of convergence is the realisation that internal balance is crucial to any relationship. Put simply, a relationship is more rewarding when both parties have adequate counterforce to relate with each other in depth. This entails not just understanding, but being able to almost ‘feel’ what the other person does, which for a female, would require a degree of masculinity in their mindset, and vice-versa.

From my experience, a relationship flows more smoothly when at least one person has a good measure of counterbalances from the opposite gender. For me it might be the preference for listening and trying to understand over talking about myself incessantly or beating my chest like a gorilla (though I occasionally dabble in said activities in jest). I am patently aware that this is an Achilles’ heel because it automatically consigns me to the ‘friend zone,’ but you can’t have it all.

In the context of the continuum, this entails that deeper relationships will be formed where the two partners are closer to the middle, because there is a higher degree of mutual understanding, and this is where we derive the concept of being on ‘a similar wavelength.’ The point to note is that we like a partner that can relate to us. As I imagine it, there’d be quite a few happy relationships if all women became sport and beer enthusiasts and all men aficionados of shopping and fashion.

M2 ADVERSE CONTINUITY

The second module of analysis attempts to delineate why ‘bad’ relationships continue, even in spite of the fact that an officious bystander can plainly see either or indeed both parties are suffering emotional hurt by being in said relationship. There are more reasons for this phenomenon that can be sensibly covered, so I shall elucidate the key ones: delusion, comfort/insecurity and manipulation.

M2.1 Delusion

There are many types of delusion, but they all share a common facet in a person convincing themselves to believe a lie. Usually this occurs when a person knows at heart that they are in a bad relationship, but force themselves to believe it is good, and subsequently continue rather than break it off. I call it constrained optimism, and it is more prevalent for the fairer sex. Depression and despair will often find the female in this regard because she is ruled by emotion over logic. One loses track of how many times the following passage has been recited in various situations:

“Look, in business, this is what we call a sunk cost. If a project isn’t doing well and the time comes to decide whether to throw more money at it or abandon ship – your decision should be independent of what has already been committed to that project.”

In essence, people often think that because they’ve devoted so much to a relationship, they must compel themselves to persevere in order to justify the time and effort they’ve put in so far – both genders do it, though women are more susceptible lending to their higher inclination for attachment. Note however that the male tendency to take advantage of female emotional vulnerability makes this unavoidably worse.

The reality is a sunk cost is just that – sunk. Recovery isn’t a consideration; and I’ll even prove it. Let’s say I’m on a $10,000 losing streak because I kept betting on black in roulette (no offence Wesley Snipes) and I put another $10,000 on black hoping to break even. Whether or not I win this bet has precisely nothing to do with previous outcomes or how much I’ve lost previously. My amusement at people who gamble contrary to this iron law is without end.

If you’re looking for buried treasure, and the hole you are digging is deep and unyielding, it’s more prudent to get out and dig somewhere else.

M2.2 Comfort Zone / Insecurity

Often our insecurities will give rise to mental conditioning, where we construct a synthetic periphery and consign our thinking to it. Sitting one’s mind inside a nice cosy box is the prevalent human system for finding security.

This ‘box’ is conceptually known as the comfort zone, an area of familiarity where the mind finds solace and sanctuary from the jagged thorns of broader reality. It consists quintessentially of everything we know; environment, people, routines, occupations of person and the general order of life. It is getting up in the morning and having a degree of certainty about the day ahead.

Good and well it all seems, but there is a proviso. A comfort zone is taken for granted because it’s just something that’s a given for most people. The inherent danger is that being in a comfort zone is addictive and further that the zone itself, though familiar, may be unfavourable. At this point, the person holds on to their comfort zone in spite of the fact it is actually hurting their development and life – and it becomes a metaphysical incarceration of sorts, self-imposed.

Time for a metaphor. A comfort zone is very similar to Linus’ security blanket. You get attached to it and become unable to let go of it. Universal common sense tells us that blankets get dirty and as a result, need to be washed.

This is where everything comes together. A partner forms a significant part of our comfort zone, if not the centre of it. Because we have unconscious attachment to, and comfort around the person, we fail to see when our partner has actually become a dirty blanket that is making us sick. Borne from this is the reason people are miserable in relationships. They have not the strength to let go of a bad relationship because they feel secure. The outcome is a vicious cycle where: because we stay in the bad relationship, we get emotionally sapped, which in turn reduces our ability to remove ourselves from said bad relationship, and on it goes.

M2.3 Manipulation
Whilst the previous two reasons for adverse continuity were tangents of self-inflicted drudgery, the third and perhaps most ubiquitous comes from the other side.

Yes I’m talking about manipulation, the single most widespread human predisposition that seems to run rampant whilst its subjects are utterly oblivious. Now manipulation comes in countless guises, but in relationship speak, only two hold special relevance because they correspond directly to the male and female: and they are emotional and sexual manipulation.

First let’s touch on the meaning of manipulation. For all its complexity, the conceptual crux is quite straightforward – exercising scheming influence for personal gain. Real estate agents do it to unwitting homebuyers, I do it to the telephone support people at Dell because they sold me a lemon…a rancid one. We all manipulate as second nature where we need to sway a situation to benefit ourselves.

Relationships are to manipulation as an auditorium to music – the place it resonates in full glory. I will now move to analyse how both the male and the female typically manipulate each other into continuing a relationship against their best interests. The male most often manipulates emotionally, and the female sexually. Note that whilst there is predominance of manipulative style, it is not exclusive – males can be sexually manipulative as can females manipulate emotionally.

A fact to which I have previously alluded, is that the relative degree of attachment a female has to her partner is more than the equivalent male has to his partner. We therefore have the disparity that forms the basis for emotional manipulation and appropriation of the relationship from the male side. What I consistently seem to find is that the male will ‘play’ the female and her emotions up and down, much like a yo-yo. He does this by acting affectionate and caring; then indiscriminately becoming defensive or angry and pushing her away. He then reverts back to being affectionate again. The interim stage is where manipulation occurs: the male has a preconceived notion that he must keep the female proverbially ‘wrapped around his finger’ in order to get her to stay with him. So he acts spiteful and cold, and proceeds to make the female feel that it is her fault. Because she is emotionally vulnerable, she feels guilty and that guilt ensnares her further in the bad relationship.

Turning to the other side of the coin, we have the complement of females being dominated by emotions – males being dominated by sex. I’m not going to try to explain it, but as iron laws of nature go, man has always been instinctively obsessed with sex, significantly more so than woman. Again, this creates a disparity that gives rise to sexual manipulation and appropriation of the relationship from the female side. The story here is that female will dangle the carrot of physical intimacy and sex such that she wields a ‘control’ over the donkey/male because he wants that carrot like an overworked Investment Banker wants crack. Of course the female also has a preconceived notion that she must keep the male proverbially ‘wrapped around her finger’ in order to keep him on the hook. She teases and plays games to incite his desire for her. When the ‘starved’ donkey finally gets the carrot, it tastes so good that he resigns himself not to go looking for a sweeter carrot. Effectively, because the male is vulnerable on instinctive sexual grounds, he is easily manipulated by sex to stay in the bad relationship.

One can assess the sphere of manipulation in terms of the financial concepts of and information asymmetry and moral hazard. First of all we often have a situation where Charlie knows he is not a good partner for Jade, though Jade believes otherwise. The knowing partner (Charlie) is in possession of asymmetric information. Manipulation is by definition synonymous to the vehicle through which Charlie exercises opportunism upon Jade to derive personal benefit (keep her in a relationship with him.) This creates a moral hazard because what relationships are trust-based and Charlie is visibly abusing Jade’s trust through his insincere emotional manipulation.

Predictably, this ends in yet another example of adverse selection in continuity for both males and females in relationships. We see demonstrably that the manipulative actions of one partner leads the other to adversely maintain the bad relationship. The funny thing is that very often the manipulation is a two-way street, resulting in both partners ending up (oftentimes obliviously) maintaining a relationship that isn’t good for them.

M2.4 Reflection

If people went into relationships with better understanding and treated them with the gravity they warrant, then there would be more truly happy couples out there. Many fail to realise that a long-term relationship is the largest and most important investment they will make in their lifetime, for it involves committing not only time and work, but massive amounts of emotional energy. It is too much to ask for something as unpredictable as love, but if everyone approached relationships with even half the maturity exercised buying a house, many things would be different. Half the psychiatry profession would be out of a job, but so too would the world be a less depressed, disillusioned and dystopic mess.

In the words of the good Reverend, Al Green: “Love and Happiness”

P. X. Waterstone

~ by X on July 2, 2006.