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.

The injured lover's hell, the green eyed monster...

"Born in love but propelled by rage, jealousy is a complex relational experience. It is a

visceral fear of loss, a set of paradoxical feelings and thoughts, an action and a reaction. Milton referred to it as the ‘‘injured lover’s hell,’’ Shakespeare, as the ‘‘green eyed monster’’ that destroys love and annihilates the beloved person. The 19th century Brazilian writer Machado de Assis described it as a ‘‘doubt,’’ a twilight between fantasy and reality, that drives a person into madness"

So, while going through some articles online I came across this one, and I found the definition breathtaking... Not only is it so poetic it makes it sound beautiful in an odd way, but I believe it defines that feeling so accurately I could never match it.

At one point, before I started this new relationship I'm in, I thought I had overcome that feeling and was rid of it for good - I couldn't have been more wrong... And yet, who's to say that some jealousy isn't healthy? Looking back I have come to realize I have only stopped feeling jealous altogether when I am not afraid I will lose the person I love - this can either mean that I don't really care or that I'm being arrogant.

At one point I was in a relationship with someone who I was pretty sure wouldn't leave me, no matter what I did. My indifference towards his absence was proportional to the intensity of the happiness that relationship brought me - in simpler words, I didn't care much if he left because he wasn't bringing much into my life anyway. 

Now, how do people normally react when they're jealous? Well, the article I'm quoting goes on:

The experience of jealousy tends

to arise without warning at a particular moment when one partner behaves in a way

that stirs up a fear of betrayal in the other. To manage the anxieties engendered, the

jealous partner may become sullen, inquisitive, or aggressive.

Ok, so I'm interested in the partner "stirring up" a fear of betrayal... This, of course, does not mean that they actually betrayed anyone, they just disturbed a sleeping monster that was already there! Like the author says "Some of the vulnerabilities that typically underlie jealousy are: a need to be recognized as the most special person in the life of the partner, fears of abandonment and betrayal, and feelings of inadequacy in which the person feels unattractive or unworthy". Are you relating to any of this yet?

The experience of the jealous person resembles a trance-like state characterized by

intrusive fantasies and fears, compulsiveness, and irrational associations.

I love that, a "trance-like" state. Have you ever found yourself going on a jealous rant while inside your head you're like "but this is stupid, I'm being silly"... And yet, there's no way to stop it once it gets going...

The French

philosopher Roland Barthes speaks of the contradictions involved: ‘‘As a jealous man,

I suffer four times over: because I am jealous, because I blame myself for being so,

because I fear that my jealousy will wound the other, because I allow myself to be

subject to a banality: I suffer from being excluded, from being aggressive, from being

crazy, and from being common’’

And one ends up having an internal battle on top of the one going on with their partner, stuck in an ambivalence that seems to eat him up.

The article goes on, explaining how this can be treated... But it doesn't mean that everyone's going to pull an Othelo on their partner just because they have wandering eyes!

I prefer to put a more positive spin on this. When jealousy is controlled (not violent or obsessive), it can show the person they are loved and cherished - I'm sure we all like to feel like someone appreciates us enough to not want to lose us. Of course, if this turns into incessant questioning, passive-aggressive behavior and meaningless fights, it stops being good for the relationship.

So, yeah, jealousy is irrational, it can turn love into rage in seconds and is more related to what one has going on in his own head than what is really happening. But most of us can't make it go away entirely, the best we can hope for is to learn to manage it, identify its absurdity and work through it with our partner... Because, in the end, it is just love expressed in a not-so-functional way and it needs only be set back on track.

SCHEINKMAN, M. (2010). Disarming Jealousy in Couples Relationships: A Multidimensional Approach SCHEINKMAN & WERNECK. Family Process, 49(4), 486-502.

Letting go versus bear-hugging someone to death

Lately I've understood this saying, perhaps truly for the first time. If you love someone, let them go... Well, you know the rest.

I've been reflecting on the idea of 'holding on to someone'... When I try to picture it, it's like that person is trying to run away and you're stopping them, grabbing on to them for dear life, because it feels like letting go would mean not seeing them again. But, how much satisfaction can one possibly get from achieving 'love' like that? Forcing someone to stay despite what they may want? Also, when you hold someone too tight, you mostly end up suffocating them.

I am the kind of person who (and perhaps this is a cultural thing, but I'll get to that on some other post), when I start dating someone, I spend as much time as I can with that person. And only in the past few years did I learn that when someone says 'I need some space' it doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to be with me or they want to go hunting for someone else...

I have especially grasped the concept that, when you love someone, if you let them go they won't necessarily run away; I mean, why would they? Someone who loves you is with you because they want to be with you, not because you're holding on to them.

In short, now I think that if you love someone, you should let them go (even if just as an experiment)... They will probably stay in the same place they were, close to you, showing you that they have more than one reason to be there... And if they do run away, you're better off - there's no point in trying to force someone to stay since, eventually, they will find a way to escape anyway.

Muegano - Bearing the distance.

So, this is a typical Mexican candy (muégano). It's little flour squares dipped in caramel and stuck together. It is also what a typical Mexican family looks like; so much, in fact, that we would call them a "Muégano family". This means that it is a family whose members are ALWAYS together and do EVERYTHING together... Of course, this also applies to friends... And couples.

Trying to read more books related to my real profession (Psychology) I happened to come across Bowlby's theory of  "Optimum Distance" - and while this may not have been a new concept for me, I saw it in a new way.

So, this theory explains that a child will always venture to walk some distance away from his or her mother up to a point. Children experiment to see how far they can go without feeling separation anxiety and, when reaching that limit, they go back to their mother to get their sense of security back (kind of like recharging it) before giving it another go. "Optimum Distance" refers to how far a child can go from their mother without feeling said anxiety. This happens as long as the child can be sure that the mother will always return (or will be easily found) after being apart from a certain amount of time. This allows the child to develop a basic security that, despite not being there, the mother will not disappear and will return when needed.

While I do not really believe in determinism in terms of how one cannot escape the consequences of our childhood, I think this can be applied quite easily to how we relate to a romantic interest...

Some couples develop a specific dependence on each other because they are afraid that distance will mean that the other person will disappear... Or at least whatever feelings they have might.

This may sound insane but it really isn't. It depends on how much they can trust that the other person will be there when they come back. Someone who is always threatening with "if you do that again, I will leave you", or disappears without warning at random intervals, fosters an insecurity in the other person that they might go away at any time. The frequency of the meetings is not what is important, but rather the security that they will meet again and all the things they share will be there when they do.

I have found that, in Mexico, it is very common for this 'Optimum Distance' to be very short... And, considering how most people grow in a household where all members of the family seem to be stuck together by some apparently sweet but incarcerating caramel layer, it really isn't much of a wonder.

As much as you love someone, you cannot (and should not) be together 24/7, we all need our space and, without such, there wouldn't be much to share with your partner either. It's all about being able to trust that the other person will be there and learning to negotiate that Optimum Distance at which both can feel free to continue with their lives without feeling like the other person is so far that they cannot see them anymore.

It is awesome when you get to a point in a relationship when either can ask for some space without feeling guilty or anxious... It gives the couple a sense of freedom and independence which, far from creating a gap between them, strengthens their bond since their relationship does not depend only on being together, but on something beyond that. Being able to have their separate lives and share them to create something new.