Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Relationship Injustice Part Two

As one might have likely inferred from the previous article, I tend to harbor a sensitivity for watching a nice, sweet, caring person allow a "significant other" to take advantage of their increasingly rare facets. It has always puzzled me how such gross imbalances manifest themselves, despite the bland, colorless "opposites attract" tenet.

Be it human nature, self destructiveness, or anti-Darwinian destructiveness, many couples seem to form when a grossly dominant person latches onto a sweet, caring, passive one. While someday I might hope to explore how these personality types are forged, for now, it's safe to assume that personality differences between couples may generally differ greatly. Many pundits, all of whom are either dead or penniless, have said that we seek a partner which may fill the voids of our own makeup. If one is passive, one might seek a dominant individual, and vice versa. I sorely hope that this human trait be quickly removed from our human nature. Should, by that resolution, a sweet, caring, passive woman be indefinitely bound to a dominant, self-centered man for the sake of, ironically speaking, fulfillment? If this natural drive for "opposites attract" is to be the pro forma means for finding a lifelong partner, then may we all regress back to the cavepeople style of smash n' grab for finding a mate, as this proves no more rewarding.

Though I think the statistics are changing, I've seen more women play the passive role in relationships than men. A dominant man in a relationship seems far more abusive than the situations in which the woman dominates. Since, by social grooming or regressive parenting, it seems that the dominant men tend to be more abusive, egocentric, and heartless than dominant women, I invariably see more women than men in tears as a result of situational emotional claustrophobia. Mind you, I perceive no differences in the inner strengths, intelligence, and resolve between both genders - but socially speaking, I think we're still a century away from the era which a female's upbringing and parenting might match that of a male's. In other words, the passive roles of women in prior centuries still loom in recent parenting models, and for that reason, the pain pendulum seems to frequent the woman's domain more often than the man's.

I, as a relatively middle-of-the-spectrum man, am prone to admire the women who take charge and refuse any passive role in their social interactions and romantic endevours. Consequently, those women are prone to gravitate toward me, and while I savor the flavors of their strong will, I know I'm not attracted to women who embrace that type of personality. And that forms the great bail-out thesis : Sometimes, people just want to spend their lives with people who are exactly llke themselves. It's rather infrequent, so it seems, these days, but makes perfect sense in the sociological context, and shines like a fresh orchid when recognized by those who suffer with the absence of psychological inequality. We seek equality and similarities in our occasional quests to match up people whom we judge to be "compatible". "Oh they both love the opera" we might say. Well, I'm inclined to say that common interests, no common interests, or perfect matching has little to do with each person's prefences toward a mate, or what they seek in terms of fulfillment and altruism. We can't rate human bonding in such external terms, and I certainly can't see computerized dating services as faring any better. Sure, there will be success stories, but everyone hits a winning lottery ticket every once in a while. So my pointless advice of the day - go with thy heart - never let a stat, or similar arbitrary measure, decide who is ideal for your partner in your one and only potentially colorless life.

No comments: