A Good Wolf

Nietzsche said that most people think that 'good and evil' fell from Heaven, as if it were something outside themselves; instead, it is people themselves who decide. And yet, so many of us have caught ourselves wondering whether something we want to do is 'all right'.

Many a time I've heard phrases such as "well, I'm not responsible for what others feel" and "I gotta live the moment". Most of them come from cheap self-help books that misinterpret Buddhist ideology. "I'll let the Universe do its work" doesn't mean that I can free myself from any responsibility and act recklessly.

However, I have found that there is a very simple way to know if something is 'good' or 'bad' (for lack of better words): if you are ashamed of what you are doing, if you hide your actions even from those who are closest to you, then you should think twice about it - not because of what they think, but rather for the reasons why you conceal it.

On the other hand, sometimes we don't even ask ourselves why we think something is wrong. Very often we keep habits from childhood and beliefs that weren't ever ours.

Some time ago I saw a video on TED.com where a lexicographer talks about what she calls 'The ham-butt problem" and it's something like this: she was cooking a ham and cut the ham-butt off as she always did, but this time she stopped and wondered why she did it - it was, of course, something that her mother had always done. So, she called her mother and asked her, and the response was "well, my mother always did it". They called grandma and she said "my pan was too small!".

How many beliefs, habits and who knows what else do we keep going just because it has never occurred to us that it could be any differently? I won't wear pink because it's for girls. I won't date more than one person because it's wrong. I won't talk about my sexuality because it's shameful. I won't eat that because it's bad for me - and this last one is wonderful because most of us have absolutely no idea if it's true, we just follow what commercials tell us (the same commercials that say that we must shampoo every day and use lots of toothpaste).

In the end, I think gay people have been pushed to question these ideas to a point (even more so while coming out), but most of us stop when we get to a comfortable point. Why? Isn't this like living in a house that somebody else built and decorated for us? I mean, it took me years to realize that I love purple and that I want to decorate my bedroom with that color! We can't really destroy the 'house' or the core of who we are, but the decoration - the beliefs, habits, ideologies - we have, we can question, arrange, rearrange and change until we feel satisfied with them. So, don't take for granted that you 'know what you like and don't like' until you've put yourself to the task of questioning it!

Healthy Love

That's what everybody wants, right? That's why Psychologists like me have work, actually... And why people buy those cheap, tacky magazines with the 20 question test that can tell you if you have a 'codependent' relationship. Also, it is rather in fashion to watch all those shows that give you tips on how to have a 'healthy' relationship... Most of which, I think, should have informercials instead of regular commercials... Very often, those shows only present utopic, ideal relationships which only Buddha would have.

It's funny how there seems to be a generalized concept of what is the ideal relationship; the one that can make you happy and, if you read this book or that, you'll find the recipe for it. Well, what if you don't really want something like that?

The concept of 'health' itself has changed in the last few years; before, it was considered 'the absence of illness or disease' whereas now it is 'the physical, mental and emotional well-being of a person'. And, no, it is not the same thing.

A relationship can be free of jealousy, deceit, arguments and problems, and still be awful... On the other hand, the presence of these factors doesn't necessarily indicate that the relationship is faulty or destructive.

When you start a new relationship, have your friends ever made comments like "you shouldn't see each other so much", " you shouldn't show you care so much", "you shouldn't be so jealous", etc. etc. It's like everyone has advice on how to have the perfect relationship - and yet, how many of those actually have it?  In fact, most of those comments only reflect what most of them are afraid of or are doing themselves, and have very little to do with you or your relationship.

In the end, I believe 'healthy love' is that which leads you to create something new in your life. To grow and make the union of the two something bigger than what they are on their own. If you're jealous, distant, cold, affectionate, intellectual, monogamous, polyamorous, etc. What does it matter as long as it makes you happy?

Promises, promises...

I was watching Mike and Molly the other day and there was this scene that really caught my attention. In short she says that she doesn't want to tell Mike that she wants to be with him 'forever' because she doesn't want to make promises she may not be able to keep... And then he says:

"There's nothing wrong with making promises you want to keep"

Many a time I have found myself in this situation. Preventing myself from making promises about a future I am not completely certain of... And yet, I seem to fail to notice the irony in that statement - there is no way I can be certain of anything in the future!

Still, does not keeping a promise like 'I will be with you forever' undermine its value? I'd say no.

Looking back to all the promises I've made (or been made), they made me happy at the time and were very real.

Even with the ups and downs, with some stories whose endings could've been much better, I think that I would still go through it all again. 'Forever' is only the moment when you feel it - expecting anything else from it is very unreal.

In the end, promises are words that express what one desires... Of course, I am talking about these platonic promises that can in no way be kept and, rather, are symbolic representations of what one's feelings are. Promises like 'I'll see you tomorrow at 5' are more about committing and a whole other story.

Telling someone you want to be with them till the end is proof of love. Don't be afraid to do it. If it doesn't work out, it just didn't and there will be reasons for it; however, you will still have lived that eternal love even if for a moment.

Gay love through the generations...

One of those things that I've rarely thought about even though most of my relationships have been with people at least 10 years older than me: How has the idea of 'love' changed through time? How does it affect what people look for and how they pursue it?

I was talking with a good friend about this and he had some very interesting ideas...

Starting with the way gay people have had to behave depending on the culture of the era. Not that many years ago, gay life was still pretty covert; people had to sneak around, hide, live in fear of being discovered and hardly being able to actually share anything with another person. So, perhaps, the focus was not so much on having a relationship (that was way too much work and, sometimes, just not possible), but rather on sex. While straight people where being taught that they had to meet someone they could spend the rest of their lives with, have babies and take to family parties, gay people had to lead double lives or look for someone they could find some relief with. We, as homosexuals, are not taught to look for the intimacy and permanence of an actual relationship. In some cheuvanistic cultures (like some places in Mexico), it is even okay to have a male lover as long as 'nobody knows about it and you get married to a woman'.

A bit later on, people who were born after Stonewall, pride and this whole diversity revolution... Well, we have it a bit easier. We are the ones who go out and hold hands with our lovers while walking down the street, face bullies and come out to our parents and try to teach them that "it's okay". We're like the 'transition generation'. We are able to, with some important effort still, have a relationship which is moderately acceptable in society and, more importantly, in our own social circles.

But, what happens when these two generations try to establish a relationship? When these two ideologies have to, somehow, coexist and adapt to each other?

Let's see. The one, while also yearning for companion, someone to share their lives with, has had to make it through the 'dark side of the street', so to speak. While we have had the chance to step into the other side...

Now, I don't want to generalize. There are always exceptions and there is no way I can speak for everybody. But this all just made me wonder if the concept of a 'romantic relationship' hasn't changed dramatically? Or enough to pose a problem for these combinations? Is my generation a bit more open to intimacy because we have been allowed to do it more openly? And have we stopped looking at sex as a union with somebody else because it is so easy to get? Or perhaps it's the other way around and we aren't really looking for that intimacy and just mistake it for sex. Maybe, people in the previous generation can separate love and sex more easily since the former was more rare and difficult to achieve? 

One thing I know for sure. Those of us who are relationship-oriented (and even those who say they aren't), are looking for someone to share our lives with; someone to love and be loved by. I'm a bit too romantic for my own good and I do believe that love can get you through anything. All those differences age, race, distance and other factors bring can be overcome as long as both people can communicate and are willing to compromise.

Faithful

"You're faithful because you want to be, not because the other person is going to, necessarily. I mean, in the end, if your partner cheats on you and you don't, it's pretty much on yourself and has nothing to do with him - you chose to act in a certain way because you wanted to". Or so my therapist said.

This is a very interesting approach to monogamy. I've heard, and perhaps I myself have considered, that one is faithful because 'you wouldn't want your partner to do that to you', right? But this brings you to a most difficult issue: does this mean that you would cheat in case your partner did it too?

Recently I read that 'commitment' is the state in which the person goes from a passive to an active role in a relationship, thus promoting the development and stability of it. Therefore, it means that people who are committed to a relationship need to take action to make it last and stay strong. It's not just about letting things happen, it's taking things into your hands and doing whatever you can to build a strong foundation for the relationship to survive whatever comes its way.

I believe, also, that being 'faithful' means different things to everyone, and a key factor for a relationship to work out is for both parties to agree in such concepts.  When both parts are playing the game with the same 'rules', it is harder for it to present any issues which could later hinder the relationship and bring about dreadful misunderstandings

In other words, if you think that cheating on your partner is reduced exclusively to the main standard of monogamy, you need to let them know so! What if they're not so much into sex but rather the emotional quality of the relationship? Or viceversa? Sometimes we think it is 'obvious', but it really is not.

Sex is really easy to get, so much that its value has gone down quite drastically. But what about love? What about intimacy and affection? It's true that you can just sleep with the first guy you meet on the street... And yet, I believe that when you are aware of what you want, it does not matter how hot or charming the new person might be, the love you have for your partner goes way beyond that.

Suspicious minds

Often condemned, rarely appreciated and mostly troublesome, this emotion seems to give lots of people a terrible headache. But, is it 'bad'? Is it 'normal'? Can we control it and does it mean anything if your partner is not jealous of you?

To my mind, it is nearly impossible to trust your partner one hundred percent; I mean, to the point that you are absolutely certain that there is no way that this person would ever stray from the path that has been set. We are all humans and we all make mistakes, so what makes it impossible for your partner not to do so?

In a way, I think that some degree of jealousy is healthy for a relationship. It shows that you are not taken for granted, that your absence would be more than just 'noted'... Then, again, I said 'some degree' of jealousy - when someone is checking your e-mails, texts and can't stand to let you out of their sight, well, that just becomes creepy.

Recently I read an article on this, defining jealousy as the feeling of the threat of real or potential rivals to an existing relationship. Not that any of us are alien to this feeling, but there was something else that caught my eye. These researchers were proposing the idea of two kinds of jealousy: 'reactive jealousy' and 'suspicious jealousy'.

Reactive jealousy happens when there is something external that makes you feel threatened; for example, when your partner has cheated on you. This type of jealousy is characterized by anger, sadness and fear. Whereas suspicious jealousy is more related to insecurity and self-esteem, and is more characterized by anxiety, insecurity and doubt.

While this makes a LOT of sense, it seems odd how different they actually are and what discrepant reactions they provoke. I mean, when someone cheats on you, it is only normal that you'd be pretty pissed off, right? Or sad because the person disappointed you... However, I don't think this is the most common form of jealousy...

Somehow, I think that mostly people (like me) suffer from suspicious jealousy. The idea of what 'might' happen but not because of what the other person could or not do, but rather because our mind creates an infinite number of stories that, while possible, aren't necessarily probable.

So, when you tell somebody you're jealous and that person asks what they can do to help you feel more confident... It's not always something that they can do. Because they can tell you they love you, give you proof they do, even get a tattoo of your face on their butt and it would STILL not help you feel less jealous! Why? Because, if it's suspicious jealousy, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with them!

The only thing that happens in these cases is that the jealous person feels anxious and insecure, which brings stress into the relationship, and their partner feel like nothing they ever do is enough, even when they try to comply with any demands that the jealous partner might make!

In the end, I think that reactive jealousy is normal and can even be beneficial for a relationship, giving the person the feeling that they are important enough to take care of... As long as it's not psycho. And if there's good communication between the couple then there's no reason why it should be a problem at all. On the other hand, suspicious jealousy is something that the person has to work with on their own; sure, their partner can help by understanding how it is not about their behavior per se, but rather some issues which are more personal and less related to the relationship itself. This means that the jealous partner should understand that, while their partner can be supportive, their behavior will not necessarily make them feel better or worse.

This could be a relief, in fact, for some people. Knowing that your partner is jealous because of their own insecurities releases you from the "responsibility" of provoking such an emotion and gives you the opportunity to be there for them in a whole other way.

The fearless lover - the fearless gambler.

That's what I was called... 'A fearless lover'. True, when I commit to someone, I give it my all. Isn't that the way? Evidently, it is not always so. Now, I'm not saying either is 'better' or 'worse', it is just a matter of how you choose to play the game.

Love is always a risk, it is exactly like any other gamble: you can only lose as much as you bet, no more and no less. For some, it is smart to count their chips and carefully place them one by one; this way, you always know how much you may lose and can withdraw at any moment. Still, the problem is that no one plays this game on their own; there's always at least one more person with their money on the table (so to speak).

However, everybody bets as much as they wish to win - for some of us it is not whether we might 'lose' but knowing if the other is playing to win as well.

So far I have learnt that it is better to bet all, otherwise why play at all? If you're going into a relationship half-heartedly then you will most likely fail... And the process will not be half as enjoyable!

The fear of being heartbroken... Yeah, it's overwhelming sometimes. But, isn't heartbreak unavoidable anyway?  Also, time heals a broken heart... But, the longer you wait, the less likely you'll be able to love fearlessly... The longer you stay in the safe zone, the harder it'll be to step out of it.

So, give it all! Love all the time! A heart that has been broken has known love and that is worth the pain... When you're in love with security and the safety of being within your defenses, there is very little room for anything else.

Absent - not gone.

If you close your eyes, does the world around you disappear? Well, it does if you're like two years old; at around this age, children start learning that even if something is not in their sight, it still exists - sounds silly, right?

Ideally, we would all go through that phase of development efficiently and all relationships would go smoothly, regardless of whether the person is next to us or in a different room. However, things are not so simple. 

Have you ever felt a pang of angst when your lover is not with you? Like at the end of the day when they go back to their place? Or, in the case you live together, if they go away for a couple of days? 

It is basically the same mechanism. People need to develop this basic trust in every relationship to know that the presence or absence of the person does NOT mean they won't return (or stay).

I was talking to a friend about this, not very long ago, and she made me realize how stuck I was in this area (along with the fact that I'm way too dramatic, but I blame my culture and roots for that). Still, I have learnt that the love you feel for someone, be it a friend, a relative or a lover, remains whether the person is there or not. I mean, there is no reason why it wouldn't!

This can bring about many problems in relationships... People who can't survive unless they see their significant other every day... With the extreme example, of course, of stalkers... Which is where it gets creepy.

Now, there is something called "transitional object", which children use to feel more 'secure' when starting to set some distance between themselves and their object of affection. This can work similarly in adult relationships... A plush toy, a ring or a necklace, a picture... There are many things people can use to feel close to their loved one regardless of where they actually are. These help in the beginning, hopefully, as the relationship grows stronger, people need these objects no longer and can deal with the absence of their partner on their own, knowing full well that they will return.

How long should you wait?

It's funny how often it happens that a book comes into my life bearing a message that applies to my life so accurately, it's scary. 

A couple of days ago, I started reading 'Giovanni's Room' by James Baldwin. I must confess that, so far, I find it to be a very depressing story - at least potentially. However, there's a beautiful romantic side to it that I can't help but adore; it's always nice, inspiring even, to read about two people falling in love and how nothing else matters to them... For a while at least.

There is a part, though, that had me reflecting for quite a while.

Giovanni: "Tell me, what is this about time? Why is it better to be late than early? People are always saying we must wait, we must wait. What are they waiting for?"

David: "Well, I guess people wait in order to make sure of what they feel."

Giovanni: "And when you have waited - has it made you sure?"

Giovanni's Room - James Baldwin

It had me thinking about how this illusion is so deeply embedded in most of our cultures - the idea that one should not be impulsive, but rather wait as long as possible to ensure that the desired outcome will turn out as expected... But, isn't this silly? I think that, when you want to do something and get that feeling deep in your gut, that itch to start moving, time will hardly make it any 'easier' to go through with it.

Perhaps the main issue is that most people believe that, by obtaining more information before taking action, it is easier to make the right choice... And I do not disagree on this point.

Except when it is about human relationships and matters of the heart. I heard somewhere that 'the brightest light will always cast the darkest shadows'; wouldn't this mean that a feeling that can change your life as much as love does, will also come with ghosts and other mischievous feelings attached? Obviously the possibility of getting all you have ever wanted cannot be separated from the fear of losing it as well...

So, how long should one wait? I think that, when two people meet, it takes only a few minutes to know where the relationship can go. Let's say, on a date, it takes very little time to know if the person in front of you can, potentially, stir your soul. 

When you feel you love someone, how long do you wait to say it? How do you 'make sure' you really love someone? It's funny to me how people can throw words around like 'hate', 'stupid', 'idiot', etc. as if they were nothing, but find it extremely difficult to say the 'L' word...

Waiting, in my opinion, is overrated. Perhaps we should be more focused on living?

Commitment : What makes a long distance relationship work.

Why would you want to stay with one person when there are so many other choices? Why stay with someone despite all the trouble it causes and the effort it takes to make a relationship work?

I found a very interesting article that addresses these questions (and many others that most of us have) with a very simple concept: commitment.

The main statement of the article drew my attention instantly: "A study has suggested that Long Distance Relationships (LDR) are more stable than Geographically Close Relationships (GCR)."

Wouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, surely being close to someone makes the relationship grow stronger and makes it easier to stay together; and I'd think it quite obvious that those who spend lots of time separated tend to slowly grow apart. However, this study attests that the factors that we assume could break such a relationship aren't really intensified by the physical closeness or lack of it.

Commitment, they say, is influenced by three factors: a) satisfaction or happiness with the relationship; b) perceived alternatives (such as other attractive partners); and c) investments that would be lost if the relationship ended.

According to this research, there's not much difference between satisfaction in LDR's and GCR's, which is the main predictor of whether these relationships will last or not.

Now, the second predictor, alternatives or other possible partners, is one that drives someone like me completely crazy. I mean, why would two people choose to be in a relationship in which they can't see each other if they have plenty of other choices right around the corner, right? Well, according to this study, this isn't that much of an issue either. Evidently, people who go for LDR are normally those who have a hight work intensity and idealization; they tend to segment their life into work and relationships. This means that people in LDR's normally focus a lot of their time apart on their work. Oddly enough, high alternatives do predict lower commitment when talking about GCR's.

This actually makes sense. People who are actually happy with the relationship they have will hardly put some time aside to look for other alternatives. Also, focusing on their work keeps them occupied and allows for more experiences the couple can share when together; isn't it awful when you spend all day, every day with someone and, come nighttime, you have nothing to say to each other?

The third predictor, investments that would be lost, is a little colder but also easier to understand. People in LDR's invest money in communication and commuting (at least), all which would be lost if they broke up. Also, when both people are striving towards being together after whatever period of time, this is seen as an investment for the future... Which makes the relationship grow even stronger. Something that, by the way, is not as easy in GCR's, since most investments are limited to shared possessions (which they can just fight over in the end).

So far, the article seems to be quite cheery about LDR's and even appears to suggest they aren't that hard. However, there is one point yet to be discussed:

"Attachment and caregiving cognition, motivation, and behavior are aspects of evolutionary-based behavioral systems that produce strong emotion (Bowlby, 1988). In important romantic relationships, partners have attachment and caregiving bonds with each other. Theoretically (Bowlby, 1969), LDR separations activate the attachment system and lead to separation protest, even when separation is a choice. The protest is attachment behavior, action designed to gain or maintain a comfortable range of proximity to the partner. Protest is evident in LDR interviewee comments (e.g., "I grieve every Monday"; Magnuson & Norem, 1999, p. 131) and reports of loneliness, sadness, missing the partner, and dreading  separation (Guldner, 1996)."

Ouch, right? So, how does one deactivate this natural reflex? This 'separation protest'? Well, here's where it gets interesting.

In GCR's, the satisfaction of each other's attachment and caregiving needs depends exclusively on their ability to do so; conversely, in LDR's this means little, since neither can do much while being apart. No matter how 'functional' their relationship may be, the apart-together cycles  they go through naturally inflict stress in the relationship.The article here relies on a theory of separation anxiety which I am not going to describe in much detail here; I will only say that most people deal with separation either by being anxious to be with the other person (and thus needing the closeness) or by avoiding contact so as to minimize the effects of said separation.

Happily, the authors of the article has some suggestions for both:

For the first kind of people, research indicates, there are many ways to reduce this anxiety as long as they can perceive the partner as available. This can be done by having pictures of the partner or frequent e-mails or phone calls.

The second group has it a little easier, since avoidant attachment makes distance work as a motivating factor for commitment. Still, this isn't always a good thing. Since this kind of partner doesn't feel as much anxiety from the separation right away, they might feel their commitment is weakening... But with time they realize it is not so.

The one thing that is definitely compromised in LDR's is caregiving. The couple may feel disappointed that they can't be there for the other person and thus 'fail' in being a safe 'haven' for them. Still, this is normally compensated through finding ways to actively demonstrate their love for the other person and substituting physical caregiving with verbal communication. Actually, this also makes for the development of better communication with each other.

In the end, the research goes on to show that what most people believe makes LDR's break up (anxiety, avoidance, fear of losing the other person, etc.) is significant only when ignoring the three factors which influence commitment. In other words, commitment in GCR's and LDR's is quite similar, except the former rely more on satisfaction and the latter on the investments made in the relationship; this since LDR partners are more likely to rule out any other alternatives before beginning said relationship. 

Once I read that "some men seem larger at a distance"; I found it funny that, in this research, people in GCR's are more likely to compare their partner's flaws with other possible alternatives, while people in LDR's tend to be in their best behaviour and appearence in the little time they see each other and, thus, increasing the satisfaction factor. Still, this also means that they see each other in situations of high anxiety and stress due to separation, which keep them from idealizing each other.