Human Relations

In January, I made an observation/had a revelation. I was thinking about the nature of relationships. I was trying to define friends, acquaintances, and lovers.

First, it has been my observation that much of human interaction is based off superficial visible sensory data. Goths hang with Goths, frats with sororities, racism, The Fat, Ugly and disabled are treated as Invisible Monsters, etc.

Then I started thinking about acquaintances. I decided those were people who I simply shared a common societal grouping with, such as Student, white, political science major, etc.

Next, I started thinking about why I consider certain individuals "friends". For me a friend is someone I can connect with on a personal and intellectual level. This means we share more then small talk.

So where does this leave lovers? Are they friends or acquaintances that you share intimacy? It seems that the #1 factor in intimate relationships is attractiveness; this would seem to indicate that they only have to be acquaintances, since any other qualities seem to be secondary at best. Which begs the question, are we really just looking for an intimacy partner? I hope not… Although, this makes the most sense to me when it comes to analyzing relationships.

Update 9/4/02 - I'm currently taking the Philosophy of Sex and Love. We are reading the book Brain Sex for the class. The books thesis is that Males and Females are fundamentally different due to differences in Brain chemistry and structure, not merely because of social conditioning. The evidence given is pretty convincing, and if they are correct then there is nothing logical about marriage or love because males and females are too different. If this is the case then love can truly be based simply off of attractiveness and marriage then books becomes a social contract to produce children. Therefore, if you're not in the market for kids then Marriage is unnecessary. This also begs the question then what is wrong with prostitution since by this definition it would be an act of "Love", besides the obvious health and legal risks? Just food for thought.

UPDATE 11/15/02 ~ I added this new bit to this page, to show how far I have come.

I wrote this piece, not to be romantic, but as a response. Recently, I have been thinking more and more on this topic. I am also taking a Philosophy of Sex & Love class. The conclusion of the class and of my own jaded thoughts is that love is nothing more then a fancy word for fuck buddy, all it takes to be in love is Sexual attraction and a desire to have sex, which causes a chemical imbalance in the brain, giving you a natural high. Tonight I reread a touching love story "A song for Lyra" and it reminded me that, love is about more then the biological drive to procreate. I think the class & I were making the same mistake; we are mistaking love for lust.

The following is my response to the class and my own thoughts.

The first fallacy of love is that people think that commonality and emotional support are the first factors in falling in Love. Actually, what most people mean when they say Love is lust. Love is now sold by Capitalism, and consequently in order to make it available for all, lust has been relabeled Love, because lust is easier to sell in our puritan conservative tradition, if it is called something socially acceptable e.g. Love. The only factor in lust is Sexual attraction:

Sexual attraction = Lust

You have to understand what you instinctually look for in a partner in terms of sexual attractiveness because long ago that was critical to survival. A few million years later... things are now different.

The next fallacy is the belief that one-night stands can fill in for lovers. This is why you have groupies; one night stands, and failed marriages. These people fail to realize that it takes more then sex and status to be in Love.

Emotional support + Intimacy (to further expression emotional attachment) = Love

With my new understanding of love, I now understand why we can be empowered to see how it is possible to see beyond the physical. The hardest thing about understanding love is that the most important part of the relationship is NOT the sex! It is the emotional support. Therefore, when seeking a Lover you should be seeking a rock of emotional support; not a fuck buddy, although, our instincts tell us otherwise.

So I take back my tainted/jaded outlook on Love; for it is not love that is tainted, it is my/our societal ideal of love that is wrong. Sex does not produce nearly as strong emotional bonds, as intimacy that is a means to strengthening an already strong emotional bond.

In understanding love in this framework, I know understand "Love is Blind". For, if there is a truly strong and mutual emotional bond, Love should be able to overcome.

Another implication is that you should not be discouraged if you have not found your emotional rock. For, it is easy to conjecture, that finding someone who can be just the right size and type of rock for you is not likely to be found easily. It is also going to take a long time for each person as an individual to decide what kind of rock they need. The deeper the person, the more detailed the rock.

Intimacy partner + Emotional Support + desire for kids = Marriage

This last bit is just a justification for marriage. If you plan to marry you should have these components in place for the sake of the kids. In an Ideal world, there would be no such thing as divorce and maybe that would possible if people stopped marrying for all the wrong reasons.