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.