Society Sucks (local, not global, sense)
A mundane observation, true, but I figured out that dating sucks because it's a social activity. Man is not an island, etc. It's like I tell my mom: we can't be expected to date within all THEIR crazy norms (like, maintain a string of 10 or so "boyfriends" or "girlfriends" without ever kissing any of them; or, have no contact with the opposite sex until 23, but get married by 24...I know, wtf; and that's only as far I've kind of been able to comprehend), because if we did, the number of people in our dating circle would be precisely ZERO. Like communism, the system only works if the rest of the world subscribes.
But unlike commies with their commie causes, I can't just say Fuck Society when it comes to dating. If I were to have pulled a dating Waldo, I would have contractually bound myself to my first honey. I was eighteen at the time (a late bloomer), and ready to fall in love, and to find the person who would make me feel special and whom I could dedicate myself to making happy. Since then things have changed. Not only am I more conscious about the importance of being independent and feeling special on my own, but I'm also totally caught up in the "game."
It came up in a conversation with the Bang today how certain relationships, and phases in our lives, and sometimes even personalities, are grounded in non-permanence. Specifically, it's often the case that in dating a man 23 to 29, the raison d'etre is nothing more than a good time, temporary companionship, and maybe learning a thing or two about yourself. And though rarely articulated to herself in so many words, these are exactly the things that a woman dating a man 23 to 29 is looking for - that's why she's dating him, even if she may have a slightly more formed idea in her head that it's possible to settle down if she's found the right man.
I bring this up because I've entered a phase, for better or for worse, where the above things - good time, companionship, and self-discovery - are my dating priorities. And I'm embittered because I have a sneaking suspicion it was never supposed to be this way. What these priorities entail is that I get a kick out of being a player, by competing and winning at the game; that my eye is always wandering for a better prize; that I'm ready to bail rather than sacrifice any part of my well-being; that if I'm not having a good time it's not even worth it.
My beef is, how is this good for monogamy? Isn't it strange that we're expected to date one way, but then just turn off these habits one day when we enter contract? Like I said, it would have been better if I got contractually committed back when I was still an idealist and ready for true love. Now, after all the heartbreak, I've trained myself to be able to be interested in other people even when I'm madly in love with the one. Folk wisdom says that you can't be happy in a marriage unless you've seen what else is out there - which is true insofar is everyone else gets to see what else is out there, and I wouldn't want to be the only one left out - but I'm thinking in an ideal world, all of us would just marry our first loves. And wouldn't you know, that's sort of the way it used to be...
Whoa, I'm hungry. I'm afraid that train of thought just trailed off.
But unlike commies with their commie causes, I can't just say Fuck Society when it comes to dating. If I were to have pulled a dating Waldo, I would have contractually bound myself to my first honey. I was eighteen at the time (a late bloomer), and ready to fall in love, and to find the person who would make me feel special and whom I could dedicate myself to making happy. Since then things have changed. Not only am I more conscious about the importance of being independent and feeling special on my own, but I'm also totally caught up in the "game."
It came up in a conversation with the Bang today how certain relationships, and phases in our lives, and sometimes even personalities, are grounded in non-permanence. Specifically, it's often the case that in dating a man 23 to 29, the raison d'etre is nothing more than a good time, temporary companionship, and maybe learning a thing or two about yourself. And though rarely articulated to herself in so many words, these are exactly the things that a woman dating a man 23 to 29 is looking for - that's why she's dating him, even if she may have a slightly more formed idea in her head that it's possible to settle down if she's found the right man.
I bring this up because I've entered a phase, for better or for worse, where the above things - good time, companionship, and self-discovery - are my dating priorities. And I'm embittered because I have a sneaking suspicion it was never supposed to be this way. What these priorities entail is that I get a kick out of being a player, by competing and winning at the game; that my eye is always wandering for a better prize; that I'm ready to bail rather than sacrifice any part of my well-being; that if I'm not having a good time it's not even worth it.
My beef is, how is this good for monogamy? Isn't it strange that we're expected to date one way, but then just turn off these habits one day when we enter contract? Like I said, it would have been better if I got contractually committed back when I was still an idealist and ready for true love. Now, after all the heartbreak, I've trained myself to be able to be interested in other people even when I'm madly in love with the one. Folk wisdom says that you can't be happy in a marriage unless you've seen what else is out there - which is true insofar is everyone else gets to see what else is out there, and I wouldn't want to be the only one left out - but I'm thinking in an ideal world, all of us would just marry our first loves. And wouldn't you know, that's sort of the way it used to be...
Whoa, I'm hungry. I'm afraid that train of thought just trailed off.
posted by Rex at 8:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home