Love Hurts and Other Relationship Myths

Relationships and love are probably the biggest complications of life, especially romantic ones. Presumably, these complications are not all natural occurrences created by nature or mutations of evolution; but rather subconscious, or even conscious, societal impact. Many of them nicely disguised as catchphrases easy to remember and constantly thrown into everyone’s faces, making them appear to be guidelines of the unwritten book of how to live happily even though they’re mostly pure fiction and, ultimately, myths of nonsense.

64f407deb2c8e20efd65c08a2c8c61d2.jpgPainting by Mao Lizi.

Love hurts – this is simple, love is just an emotion. A physical reaction, a rush of chemicals. This emotion is naturally associated with happiness, if the feeling of loving someone is troublesome that’s lovesickness or other physiological manifestations. But the idea of loving as an hurting emotion? There’s definitely truth in that love might bring pain, in the context of a relationship. Relationships are messy and complicated, people tend to hurt each other both with and without intent. That might hurt, but the feeling of love? No. Should a relationship always produce an emotion of unease, due to the massive passion that drains you emotionally, physically, perhaps even “soulfully”? Also, no. So, while being in a relationship might hurt at times, the feeling of love and the majority of the relationship shouldn’t.  

The woman is always right – in the heterosexual paradigm (because in relationships with either none or only women this doesn’t really apply) this is a prominent occurring phrase, often seen as “objective truth”. The thesis is hugely based on matters being solidified to absolutes. The first one being that there’s always right (and therefore wrong) to every situation, which there isn’t. Life, relationships, and situations are far more often nuanced and require complicated answers, emotions, and discussions. Another aspect of this is the lack of equality in the analysis. While I cheer men who identify power in women, this is not the way to reach gender equality in neither society nor romantic relationships. Women are people, equally (ironic) as complicated, nuanced, and fully as other people, including men.

The best relationships require the least amount of work – this is something that I’ve encountered numerous times, even though there isn’t a very well rehearsed phrase for it; people thinking that the best of relationships are simply “natural” by everything falling into place without having to put in emotional work. That the chemistry is so strong that the burden of work isn’t needed, that if anything is “forced” it’s not a relationship to strive for. This is, in my humble opinion, ludacris and absolute nonsense. Having a intimate and trusting romantic relationship built on friendship and companionship is not something that comes easily, simply because most people don’t trust others off the bat of meeting them and engaging with them, it’s a process. Also, in a relationship that is intended to last for longer than the honeymoon phase, emotional work is essential since that shimmer of amorous eternity fades simply because the body can’t obtain that feeling for longer than a set timeframe (people who claim to have been in the honeymoon phase for longer than one and a half year is lying).

Happy wife, happy life – this idea of constantly pleasing your spouse to obtain happiness is a process of completely diminishing oneself into a subhuman, a co-dependent of any other kind. Life contains of more experiences, and in many aspects more important, than having and maintaining a romantic relationship. And even when being in a romantic relationship, the most important part of it is not to please the other person(s). Personal happiness can’t rely only on external factors such as romance, because if it’s taken away there wouldn’t be anything left. Romantic relationships can be a massive part of leading a happy, fulfilling life, but life shouldn’t be dedicated to please another human being regardless of how strong the love is.

People (will) change for love – the emphasis of this point is the word will, since this is not a set point of nonsense. Some people choose to change for love, then in matters that they prioritise less than the relationship. But if the change they’re being asked to make is a massive part of their identity, upbringing, or life that they either value higher than the person they’re in love with or see no real reason to the requirement of change they most likely won’t change. As mentioned earlier, love isn’t everything, so to naturally throw oneself into submission of moulding into the other person’s needs and desires is neither healthy nor realistic. And on the topic, being in a relationship doesn’t naturally allow to require change. It isn’t a human right to have someone change for you, and being with someone who you would want to change fundamentally or completely isn’t the right relationship or person.

Jealousy is healthy – this is one of the biggest myths and tragedies of relationships. Indeed, feelings of jealousy are very common and often play a huge role of most relationships, however it shouldn’t be thrived for or admired. To be jealous is not an act of love, being that people love each other more if they’re jealous, and that this idea is hugely normalised and even romanticised today is actually really tragic. Jealousy is an emotion born and bred out a discommunication in the relationship, often distrust in the partner or oneself’s ability of being loved and cared for. Lack of confidence, fear of abandonment, or unease in the relationship due to conflicts or such matters can all lead to personal discomfort and then being transformed into jealousy. People don’t love you more because they’re jealous, they’re simply more insecure.

Soulmates – simply just that, soulmates. This doesn’t really need a grand gesture of philosophical thinking and personal opinions to disprove, only simple logic. One, there’s no such thing as a soul and even if they did exist this idea is based on the matter that souls both have to and are able to coexist in a magical sphere joined but also separate due to their hosts not being the same person. Two, the idea of soulmates also require the idea of a deterministic rather than a spontaneous natural order. Not only a creationist such as Allah/God/Jehovah/Yahweh, but one who has formed each and every individual with another individual in mind rather than the process of evolution and its mutation and natural, spontaneous development. Three, the belief in soulmates is exclusive to a narrow view of sexuality. It doesn’t speak about polyamory, does a person have multiple soulmates in such cases? Or is one better than the rest? How would that be fair? Furthermore, the idea of soulmates also exclude people identifying on the spectrum of asexuality. If there’s no desire to have a romantic relationship, does one still have a soulmate? Who will this soulmate end up with, if their soulmate doesn’t want them? In summary, the soulmate paradigm speaks only to the monogamous and people with a strong sense of sexual sexuality, which disproves the idea of it being a generalised “truth”. Four, in a hypothetical scenario, a parallel universe, where soulmates could exist, on a planet of 7.5 billion people, what are the odds of meeting one’s soulmate? Author and scientific theorist and engineer Randall Munroe explores this matter in his book What If? (2014), amongst others things, and calculates a hypothetical scenario of people having multiple possible soulmates, but even when a person lock eyes with 500 000 people in their lifetime the mathematical possibility still calculates that finding your one true soulmate is 1 in 10 000. That’s an advantage of 0.01 percent. And with such calculations, it’s made fairly easy to state that the idea of a soulmate is mathematically not impossible but ridiculous, especially if this data is compared to the numbers of people living in happy relationships today.

Adrian

Advertisements

Documentaries To-Be-Seen

My love for films also extend greatly beyond the fictive narrative, a well produced documentary can easily be as joyful or heart breaking as another film about falling in love. Some of my best film experiences are even documentaries, as they are spellbinding with their storytelling while also shedding light upon reality as it is and not what it could be. With that being said, my to-be-seen list of documentaries is rapidly growing, so here’s a slice of the wonders I intend to embark upon in the nearest future.

Making A Murderer: Part 2 (2018) mam2.jpg
Image source.

The first installment of this series, released on Netflix in 2015, is in my top 5 best on screen experiences, so when the announcement of the follow up series releasement reached my conscious I was obviously thrilled. The previous season had me shaken to my roots, quivering with rage and empathy, mostly at the same time. It’s a massive queue to the American system of bureaucracy and law, and how equality is still very far off in the distance. And I expect the second season to be even more complicated, nuanced, and in depth about the inner beliefs of the state of freedom.

 

Icarus (2017)d6e2c2367641b2ecffac303d72acf882-ikaros1.jpgImage source.

The documentary of Icarus was presented to my through a recommendation in a YouTube video, and has been on my to-see list ever since. It’s not really a matter I usually find interesting, that being both sports and its related drugs, but branching out is usually a good decision, trying to explore and understand matters other than my personal interests. And similarly to Making A Murderer, this investigates bureaucracy and its hidden massive flaws which is hugely impactful on me, so this is actually a well chosen documentary to see. The movie poster for the documentary is also clever as few and hilarious while also simultaneously being clean cut gorgeous, hats off!


For the Love of Spock
(2016)
_81300586_81300585Image source

Browsing for new series and movies to see I accidentally stumbled across this documentary, an exploration and depiction of Leonard Nimoy and his portrayal of Spock. The inner geek of me was immediately drawn to the subject, so it ended up on my to-watch-list. A fun side note is that the documentary was actually mentioned on the sitcom The Big Bang Theory, in an episode where the character Sheldon Cooper is interviewed by Adam Nimoy (who directed the documentary even in real life) and the Star Trek actor Wil Wheaton (but who isn’t in the documentary). But even though Sheldon isn’t appearing in the actual documentary, Jim Parsons (the actor who plays him) is interviewed. Altogether, this documentary has so many levels of geek that watching it is inevitable.

Adrian

The Power of Moral

In Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (2014) the author Yuval Noah Harari claims that the fundamental reason humans has established their place on top of not only the food chain but enslaving the entire planet to their advantage, is the human only ability of imagination. All species of animals can work together in groups, but only up until the membership of the group reaches the mark of 150 individuals (depending on the specific species). However with imagination, the idea of a social construct, such as a company or a nationality, humans have the advantage of crossing that mark of 150 members, and are able to trust and work together in spirit of the construct in a much larger scale. This is the fundament of the existence of any kind of construction today, the nations, laws, and social norms all function in today’s society because all accept the imagination of that they exist.

Another, perhaps equally important, aspect to why society as a concept still works, regardless of personal believes, is the usage of moral. The dichotomy of the good and the bad. With everything humans encounter comes a moral code, even if the actual matter is neutral. For example, the action of having sex is neutral, however humans have associated it with a strong morality. A lot of times having and enjoying sex is punished by feelings of guilt and shame, the activity can be seen as disgraceful or even disgusting, and ultimately being categorized as bad. So regardless of individuals’ personal opinions on sex, humanity has used the tool of moral to collectively silence anything regarding the matter. Similarly to Harari’s explanation of imagination’s importance to society, morality and the dichotomy of good and bad is also as configuring to the civilisation of humankind.

genie du mal lucifer of liege 2.jpgImage source.

Importantly noted, imagination and morality are perhaps in their nature separated, but in society they thrive of each other, along each other, and because of each other. The result of human imagination creates systematic order, which morality solidifies in the human collectives’ mindset, which can be interpreted as both immensely damaging and, actually, freeing and fulfilling. They create society as humans know it today, in its absurdity but also in its sanity. The imagination of law forces people into submission to act or restrain to do so, and morality strengthens this. People choose not to act if law prevents it, but thinks of the action accordingly to the morality attached to it. For example, most people choose not to steal from others because they can be punished for proceeding it but they also would never choose to do so even if told they could because of the moral code of it (“thou shalt not steal”). Morality also play a huge role in emotional matters, since people in this example also would restrain from stealing even if it benefited themselves due to emotions such as empathy. And while the moral debate of stealing (or anything, really) is a never ending black hole of philosophical thinking, supposedly most people don’t mind following this order of moral since society arguably benefits from it. However, to determine what moral code benefit society is another moral discussion in itself, with no definitive answers. While legalising and respecting all people regardless of socioeconomic status is a given for some people, it is seen as the biggest of sins for others, a disputation created by different morality.  

Nonetheless, as with everything, both the imagination and morality undergo immense change. Laws and structures change, morality as well. In a democratic nation people are responsible for electing the path of change regarding politics, law, and societal structures, and most people happily believe in voting, but most of those people might also be newcomers to trying to alternate morality, due to feelings of shame. Talking openly about one’s experiences with matters morality forbids or associate with shame and/or guilt feels hugely personal and too intimate, and living fully accordingly to the inner self (a highly debatable terminology, feeling rather too spiritual for my like) is rare. However, if democracy is ever so interesting to preserve a shift is desperately needed. The revolution of politics is dependent on morality to also undergo a transformation, as, as stated earlier, they thrive off each other. With a shift of morality humankind could finally, as a whole, accept and respect people regardless of socioeconomic status, end weaponry war to instead lead global discussions in situations of disputation, and radically change society to better the environment rather than destroying the planet. Because actions like these require massive political reformations, that in a democratic state will not be put into action unless people choose to vote with these matters in mind. If voting matters, altering morality must as well.

Adrian