FamilyCourtChronicles.com Web
Random photo from RoamingPhotos.com THE FAMILY COURT PROJECT HAS COME TO A CLOSE. Effective 6/1/08, Family Court Chronicles has become inactive (announcement), and no new information will be added. The page below is retained for archive purposes, but it could be out of date. Upon request, the webmaster will continue to correct significant errors and will consider removing information that is destructively obsolete. (Email: FamilyCourtGuy (at) gmail.com) See Glenn Campbell's home page for his still-active websites. KillroyCafe.com

The Case Against Marriage A Book in Progress by Glenn Campbell “Read it or weep!” Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next Chapter>> Production Notes | College Lecture | Glenn's Home Page   NOTE: This work has been ABANDONED as too long-winded and repetitive, but you are welcome to get whatever you can from it. The essential ideas are best summarized in a single page. Most of my new philosophical musings on relationships, etc. are now found in Kilroy Cafe. —GC, 5/09

Theories of Romance

The Case Against Marriage - Chapter 9 - 7/27/2007

So how do you find the romantic partner who is right for you? Is it all magic, or can there be some science involved? Is it really possible to "choose" at all, or are you at the whim of the stars?

There are two basic theories about how to find romance. One is that you should fall in love with whomever you happen to be thrown together with. We can call this the "opportunity theory." The other approach is to actively and consciously search for the best partner. You seek out and review candidates and compare them to a set of criteria you have in your head. You pursue those candidates who meet the criteria and reject anyone who doesn't fit the bill. We could call this the "active selection" theory.

The extreme example of the opportunity theory is an arranged marriage. Your parents select your partner for you, and you only have to go along. Most of us would agree that, knowing our parents and loving them dearly, there is NO WAY we're going to sign on to this plan.

However, there are other examples of opportunity that we might agree with. If you are thrown together with someone at work and get to know them over a period of time, you may find that the two of you "click". This person may not have been part of your plan, but they could still end up being a productive choice.

Active selection is more complicated. It is more akin to the recruiting of new employees: You review the resumes of available candidates, chose several of them for interviews, then make an offer to the one who you think is the best. This is the idea behind personal ads in your local alternative newspaper, e.g. "Slender SWF seeking SM, tall, dark and handsome. Proof of employment required." It's also the sort of thing that happens in singles' bars: You strut around in your costume, checking out the lineup of available candidates, and after an indeterminate number of drinks you decide who to go home with.

There are several problems with an active selection process. One is the quality of the candidates. Both men and women seem to agree—wherever they happen to live—that the candidate pool is pretty dismal. "Where have all the cowboys gone?" bemoans one popular song. It seems all the candidates who are available are not desirable, and those who are desirable are not available.

Another problem is that once you find a candidate who meets your criteria and you make an offer, there is no guarantee that your offer will be accepted. If that candidate is also going through a selection process, it may be entirely different from yours, and you, quite frankly, may not be their cup of tea.

A third question is whether you are even competent to make this selection. Do you really know what you want? Are the criteria that you put down on your Christmas list really the essential qualities that will lead to a successful relationship? Do you have the realistic ability to evaluate these criteria without your own desperation and wishful thinking skewing your perception?

In the animal kingdom, it is usually the female who does the selecting. She merely has to look pretty and act aloof while the male puts on a display for her. A gentleman bird struts around, puffs his chest, shows his plumage and fights competing males, all in an effort to demonstrate to the lady bird the quality of his sperm. If you are the lady bird, you are probably turned on by this, as your genes have programmed you. If you are an enlightened lady bird, however, you have to ask yourself, "Are these really the qualities I need in a mate?"

This behavior seems to be carried over in the human world, where the female tends to be more passive and pretty, while the male is expected to make the first moves and put on an active show to woo her away from her neutral position. Humans have their various meat markets where selections are made the same way as in the animal world: based on appearances and symbolic plumage. A good body in a tight dress will get females the attention of plenty of suitors, while the male seems to benefit from money, power and the style to show them. It is unlikely, however, that the evaluation methods of either the male or female are good predictors of a stable relationship.

Where have all the cowboys gone? You can find them at a rodeo—ropin', ridin' and drinkin' beer. Maybe you see one fine specimen bustin' a wild bronco. His bravery and musculature turn you on, and you decide to take him home. If you fall in love, start a family and your cowboy, in true cowboy fashion, takes off and is never seen again, whose fault is it? Are rodeo skills really a good predictor of relationship skills?

In the hiring of employees, a lot of stock is put in the resume, which is another form of symbolic plumage. If the candidate went to Harvard and seems to have all the background experience needed for the job, an employer is going to pay attention. An enlightened romance seeker might use a similar approach, analysing each candidate's "resume" before deciding whether to accept/reject or pursue/not pursue. They think they are being more progressive by not looking at boobs or brawn but at credentials and background.

The critical thing that resumes don't convey, however, is personality. This is the person's habitual style of operating, quite separate from their credentials. For example, are they introverted or extroverted? Do they "work well with others" and can they be relied on to show up for work? Someone can have a fantastic resume but still be a shitheal to work with. One can also have a weak resume yet be highly motivated and intuitive on the job.

Personality is pretty much fixed by the time of adulthood, and there isn't much that you can do within a romantic relationship to change it. That doesn't stop people from trying. Once you are bonded to someone, you may find yourself saying, over and over, "I know I can change them." What you inevitably find in the end is that you can't change them. People can sometimes change their own personalities over the course of their lifetimes, but not through anything you can do from the outside.

Some elements of personality can be detected within minutes. Is a person warm or distant, smart or stupid, funny or dully serious? After fifteen minutes, you might have a general idea of who you are dealing with, but you are far from the full story. Of particular interest is how they react to stress. Do they blame others for their misfortunes, or do they take responsibility and rise to the occasion when times get tough? You might also want to know how their personality is going to interact with yours when you are both under stress.

When you interview or date someone, you are only going to see their best side. You aren't going to see how they operate under fire. Unfortunately, to evaluate this you may have to actually hire them or live with them for a while. Maybe you are never really going to know your partner until long into the relationship. This is why you have to leave yourself an escape hatch.

The most important criteria for evaluating a relationship is the quality of actual communication. This starts with speaking the same language. If you speak English, then you ought to limit your search to other English speakers. This may seem like a no-brainer, but people are often drawn to candidates from alien cultures for their perceived exoticness. To expect your relationship to succeed, the two of you need to speak the same language from the very beginning—not just English, but the particular subset of English native to your worldview.

Should you choose a partner who is "like" you or "unlike" you? Do "opposites attract" and complement each other, or should you be looking for a clone of yourself? The boring and unfortunately true answer is that you need to find someone as similar to you as possible. This doesn't have to be a clone necessarily. You can come from different backgrounds and have different preferences, but you have to have a subtle and expressive language in common, based on a set of common experiences. Without it, misunderstandings are going to grow, especially in times of stress, and you won't be able to talk about the problems between you. If you speak English and they, at some fundamental level, speak Greek, it is never going to work out.

Meeting people through "opportunity," with prudent selection, can have certain advantages over a purely selective model. For one thing, you have a chance to know these candidates better before making a choice. You are also seeing them operate under circumstances that they themselves don't control. Ideally, you want to see the candidate perform under stress, and since you can't usually set up this experiment yourself, you can only wait for it to happen naturally, then observe the results.

But opportunity can also be frightening. You don't want end up with just anyone simply because you landed on a desert island together. It can be difficult to reject someone who you are already in close proximity to, even if you feel the relationship isn't the best. At singles' bars it is pretty easy to accept and reject. At the workplace, it is much more awkward, especially if you see this person every day. How do you regulate these sensitive relationships?

The most important thing is to know who you are and what you want. Romance itself should never be your top personal goal; you have to be working toward something else. Maybe you have a career that is important to you or some other personal mission. If you feel strong and secure in this identity, then it is relatively easy to regulate your romantic relationships based on it. Romance is allowable if it contributes to the mission and unacceptable if it detracts from it. It is easier to hold the line with others if you know where your own boundaries are.

Paradoxically, a relationship is most likely to work if it is not the center of your universe but only a second priority to something more important. As much as you may want your partner to give your life meaning, they can't. Don't ask me what your mission should be; that has to come from within you. Once you have solid direction and identity of your own, your relationships will fall in line behind it.

Continued in Chapter 10