nemorathwald (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
nemorathwald) wrote2004-08-19 11:58 am
nemorathwald) wrote2004-08-19 11:58 am
Entry tags:
Genetics and Romance
So many people with relationship domestication issues lately. Some friends of a friend are headed for a divorce. They were in an open marriage, and she fell in love with another man, which is what open marriage means. I said, "if that's the deal they made, so far so good. What's the problem?" Well, problem is, he suddenly realizes (now that he's into it), maybe sharing his wife is not what he wants after all. Oh, NOW you tell her. But, I can't be too hard on this guy. It's tough enough to figure out what you want for dinner, to say nothing of what you want out of a relationship. The truth is, studies have shown we are evolutionarily programmed to have a double-standard. What we all really "want" (biologically, not rationally) is a committed, faithful spouse to whom we are not faithful in return. That's why his desires changed, much to his sincere surprise. A secure provider is sought because, for the gene code to reproduce again, some offspring must survive. But the safe, reliable mate is not always the most vigorous specimen. Genes are most likely to endure by having variation in sexual combination. If the offspring produced by the mate dies, the illegitimate kids might be more healthy. It's not about individual kids surviving, the genes don't give a damn about the kids, just the genes in them. Or your happiness either; you are its vehicle.
Your genetic code is not your friend. It created you; but only as its uncaring tool to gain at your expense. Genes express themselves in subtle influences on our desires. We don't always follow our feelings and urges because we're reasoning creatures, but those feelings and urges come from genes. What you need to realize is that your genetic code is completely selfish and would happily ruin your life in order to propagate. Men and women shouldn't be ashamed of how they're influenced by the genetic code trying to hijack their lives. For instance, a man's wanderlust and a woman's damn nesting instinct. It's just inconvenient that what's good for the genetic code is sometimes different from what's good for us, so our choices usually are an uphill fight against feelings, and this frustrates me. That which generates interest and infatuation, or which triggers biological clocks, contradicts what our rational minds would tell us, if we allow our minds to question our animal instinct. If you refuse to question the truth claims of your basic drives, you are royally screwed, because they will contradict each other. Nature has not been good to the human race in this respect. Thanks for creating us, Mother Nature, now would you please stop trying to run our adult lives for your own blind gain?
Another story. One guy who I used to hang out with a lot a long time ago, I haven't talked to in a year because he was preoccupied with being in love and getting suddenly engaged, and eloping. I will call him Gaston. Last year, the last time I visited Gaston, I said not to believe what his hormones were telling him. Her feelings and needs are going to change like anyone else, and so are his. They will have to adapt; it is not going to last forever in this state. By "believing" it, he's setting himself up for a letdown. Just enjoy the experience of being in love, I told him. This is OK! Enjoy each other like a painting, like a fine wine, like a symphony, while it lasts. But when you're under the influence of love, put a padlock on that filing cabinet in your brain marked "facts"!
A year ago this girl was swearing up and down that she would never take Gaston away from his friends and other activities. It looked that way from her actions, because that's how she really felt-- back then. Of course, a woman marries a man thinking he'll change and he doesn't; a man marries a woman thinking she won't change, and she does. So now her female nesting instinct kicks in. (Some of the men of my acquaintance tell me that they feel lucky not to have to deal with a woman's genes telling her to make a home, and get a man to permanently commit so they can start popping out spawn... I envy gays. They are an evolutionary "oxbow lake" and that's why they get to be a little more free from the evolutionary self-contradictions I'm describing in the gender wars.)
So she changes: "my man my man my man mine mine mine." Again, this is much to her sincere surprise, just like the husband in the first story. Anyway, the active life of adventure and interest Gaston led, that I used to envy, is now a competitor with her. She may as well pee a circle on the ground around him. She would be happier to thank her goddess that she gets to be with him at all. He loves her deeply. Gaston's a real knight in shining armor when it comes to women.
If I were my friend I'd say, "if you want to change the deal that we made up front, in which you knew what you were getting, you have to renegotiate the conditions of our relationship." But guess why she thinks she doesn't have to? Because of that damn wedding, she thinks she's got him forever, unconditionally, no matter what. Therefore they are suddenly no longer privileged to be with each other, they are entitled, and can call not upon desire, but upon dutiful obligation.
This is why unconditional love is the kiss of death on any relationship. You are either priveleged to have a person, or you have the right to complain about not having them. One or the other. When your money is mine and my money is yours, there is no such thing as a gift. You can't "gift" someone with what's already theirs. Obligation to do a thing, makes your sincere desire to do it superfluous. I'm serious. It got to the point with me years ago, that if you asked me if I internally wanted to do a good deed, I honestly couldn't have told you. I did it because I had to, so until obligation went away I had no opportunity to test and see if I would still do it.
Your genetic code is not your friend. It created you; but only as its uncaring tool to gain at your expense. Genes express themselves in subtle influences on our desires. We don't always follow our feelings and urges because we're reasoning creatures, but those feelings and urges come from genes. What you need to realize is that your genetic code is completely selfish and would happily ruin your life in order to propagate. Men and women shouldn't be ashamed of how they're influenced by the genetic code trying to hijack their lives. For instance, a man's wanderlust and a woman's damn nesting instinct. It's just inconvenient that what's good for the genetic code is sometimes different from what's good for us, so our choices usually are an uphill fight against feelings, and this frustrates me. That which generates interest and infatuation, or which triggers biological clocks, contradicts what our rational minds would tell us, if we allow our minds to question our animal instinct. If you refuse to question the truth claims of your basic drives, you are royally screwed, because they will contradict each other. Nature has not been good to the human race in this respect. Thanks for creating us, Mother Nature, now would you please stop trying to run our adult lives for your own blind gain?
Another story. One guy who I used to hang out with a lot a long time ago, I haven't talked to in a year because he was preoccupied with being in love and getting suddenly engaged, and eloping. I will call him Gaston. Last year, the last time I visited Gaston, I said not to believe what his hormones were telling him. Her feelings and needs are going to change like anyone else, and so are his. They will have to adapt; it is not going to last forever in this state. By "believing" it, he's setting himself up for a letdown. Just enjoy the experience of being in love, I told him. This is OK! Enjoy each other like a painting, like a fine wine, like a symphony, while it lasts. But when you're under the influence of love, put a padlock on that filing cabinet in your brain marked "facts"!
A year ago this girl was swearing up and down that she would never take Gaston away from his friends and other activities. It looked that way from her actions, because that's how she really felt-- back then. Of course, a woman marries a man thinking he'll change and he doesn't; a man marries a woman thinking she won't change, and she does. So now her female nesting instinct kicks in. (Some of the men of my acquaintance tell me that they feel lucky not to have to deal with a woman's genes telling her to make a home, and get a man to permanently commit so they can start popping out spawn... I envy gays. They are an evolutionary "oxbow lake" and that's why they get to be a little more free from the evolutionary self-contradictions I'm describing in the gender wars.)
So she changes: "my man my man my man mine mine mine." Again, this is much to her sincere surprise, just like the husband in the first story. Anyway, the active life of adventure and interest Gaston led, that I used to envy, is now a competitor with her. She may as well pee a circle on the ground around him. She would be happier to thank her goddess that she gets to be with him at all. He loves her deeply. Gaston's a real knight in shining armor when it comes to women.
If I were my friend I'd say, "if you want to change the deal that we made up front, in which you knew what you were getting, you have to renegotiate the conditions of our relationship." But guess why she thinks she doesn't have to? Because of that damn wedding, she thinks she's got him forever, unconditionally, no matter what. Therefore they are suddenly no longer privileged to be with each other, they are entitled, and can call not upon desire, but upon dutiful obligation.
This is why unconditional love is the kiss of death on any relationship. You are either priveleged to have a person, or you have the right to complain about not having them. One or the other. When your money is mine and my money is yours, there is no such thing as a gift. You can't "gift" someone with what's already theirs. Obligation to do a thing, makes your sincere desire to do it superfluous. I'm serious. It got to the point with me years ago, that if you asked me if I internally wanted to do a good deed, I honestly couldn't have told you. I did it because I had to, so until obligation went away I had no opportunity to test and see if I would still do it.
no subject
(in fact, you should read everything by Heinlein, but "For us, the living" has a big section on genetics and love, and also on religion and influence on society, and I think you would find it stimulating)
no subject
no subject
styles of arcs?
Or, maybe I'm reading too much between the lines.
Re: styles of arcs?
I chose arc, because arc incorporates a sense of both motion and direction into the concept of a trend, and also, obliquely, implies that outside forces have an impact on that motion and direction. All of these flavor the way I perceive and think about social dynamics.
Biological-style was chosen because your topic is based on what I suspect are very closely biologically-driven social tendencies. Debatably, enough steps back, there's going to be a biological-style arc underpinning almost anything. But some of them are enough steps removed, in my perception, to have other types of patterning which is more clear on the surface. Social commentary based on politics or technological implications, for example.
I'm lightly fuzzy-headed today, so if that isn't clear, feel free to ask more questions.
Oh, is there going to be a MOFO this Monday? I'd like to talk to folks about the swordfighting space for PenguiCon, and I'm going to be out of town for the con comm meeting.
Re: styles of arcs?
For a moment yesterday I wondered if I was acting like that crowd in Life of Brian who keep reading deep meaning into everything Brian says. "The shoe is a sign, that we shall do likewise!" "Taking off the shoe is a sign that we shall think not on the things of the body, but of the face, and head!" "Fuck off!" "How shall we fuck off, O Lord?"
There will be MOFO every week. Next week the answer shall be yes also. "No" shall the answer NOT be, neither shalt the answer be "maybe." Moreover, "yes" shall be the answer the week after that, yea verily, unto the end of the age.
Re: styles of arcs?
Sometimes I'm just taking my vocab out for a job, but that's the exception.
As for MOFO, thank you for your guidance in the Way of Enlightenment, O wise one. (:
"For us, the living" - Robert A. Heinlein
May I borrow this book? It sounds interesting and I'd like to read it someday. If you're in town today I'm in Ann Arbor and will be getting off work around 3:00. (Or taking a lunch break sometime before then.)
Hopefully see you soon, even if no book is involved!
no subject
These sound very good.
Re: These sound very good.
As for Fossil Games, it goes on themes of devotion to ideology mostly, but it touches on the inability to think objectively about love interests. One ideologist is like me, and the other is like a lot of folks I know, but neither of them are "the right side" if there is any such thing in Purdom's view. I should loan you the anthology it's in which I just bought three days ago. I'll bring it to the MOFO gathering tomorrow.
Re: These sound very good.
Um. I remember it's in Southfield. Where?
Re: These sound very good.
Re: These sound very good.
no subject
I think there is an important piece to add here. Money, Material things, are not the only (And certainly not the best) gifts available. Rachel, seeing that I had a bad day, recently gave me a wonderful gift. She made that night about me. I told her what I wanted, and we did.
When I feel good about our relationship, and my life, I give the gift of a better Chuck to live with. When I feel bad, or taken for granted, or ignored, I am not the shining knight I can be, when I am at the top of my game.
By marrying Rachel, I told her I would share her life as long as I was able. . As long as the living of that shared life did not destroy either of us. I *Did*Not* even attempt to swear that I would be the best me I can be. . . . That guy take s a heck of a lot of work, and a lot of motivation, to maintain. . . . But occasionally I feel like Rachel deserves a more than I am most days. . . And I make the effort. . . .Do the special thing that I normally would not. . . . And give a gift that *IS* mine to give. . . . And mine alone.
no subject