So, after a "nice" few months of weirdness where I clearly was not hanging out here very much, I got dumped about an hour ago. My question to put to the forum is the following: How come it's the normal, stable seeming types who really screw you over, and the ones who everyone thinks will fuck you over tend to actually treat you alright?

Cause appearances are deceiving.

Also, you know, people suck.

Glad your back but sorry about the dumping.

My guess is the stable types are scared to dump someone rationally. They have someone else already lined up so they won't be alone - you will be. They don't care, just move on.

The "fuck you over" people might be afraid to hurt you because of their reputation. Plus you might be expecting something awful from them so when you get dumped "gently" you're surprised.

Of course you could count the times I've been seeing someone on hand, with no fingers, so I'm just guessing here.

In Response to Rich (#28747):

Wow. That could actually adequately describe my lovelife.

Though you forget the bit where people seem to think that "I never liked you" or "I'm not into you anymore" is a reasonable way to dump someone, when they have some other real reason that they don't seem to want to disclose. I'm sorry but if someone really isn't into you then why were they with you to begin with? Basically either they have some kind of other random reason that is so horrifying that they don't want to tell you, or they were using you all along. Fantastic.

Oh yes, and for the millionth time that was the reason that I got dumped today.

In Response to snipergirl (#28749):

Or they received a sharp blow to the head which made them irrational.

Which could be justification for you to give them another blow to the head. Don't hit too hard and it could bring them back to their senses! A type of physical therapy, really.

There are ways to be involved intimately with people without being exclusively coupled. In such non-traditional circumstances, it's possible that notions of jealousy, cheating, possessiveness, and dumping are not very applicable. Despite the countless millenia of tribalism shaping typical social behaviors, i suspect that many of us living in this modern day are able to consider alternatives.

In some ways, i feel that emotional enslavement of each other is even more distasteful than political or financial slavery, because it's so personal. I prefer interpersonal activity where people can be friends and lovers all their lives, and there are many friends, and many lovers. Whether any of this applies whatsoever to you or to anybody else is entirely a matter of personal preference-- if you wish. If you don't wish, and you're happier with popular conventions, then you might not be surprised to see repetitious patterns emerge-- patterns in which people "cheat", "get dumped", "get fucked over", et cetera.

In Response to zamphir (#28746):

I think I've come to the conclusion that if someone is being honestly and realistically a weirdo it's more believable and easier to cope with than a façade of normality because that usually hides all kinds of crap.

In Response to Teledildonix (#28751):

Well the rather irritating thing about this all was that last weekend, said individual upon questioning said that he would rather I not kiss anyone else. So I pretty much have to be monogamous for a week, and then he dumps me. Wanker.

In Response to snipergirl (#28755):

... said that he would rather I not kiss anyone else. So I pretty much have to be monogamous for a week...

Since i don't really know how you make decisions about these sorts of things in your personal life, this might not be directly pertinent. But i'm reminded of something i read in GuideMag.com, edited by French Wall and published by Edward Hougen. It was written by a gay male with a presumably gay male audience, so i imagine many readers might not relate. But anyway, here it is:

What's Sex Got to Do with It?

Check out the personal ads in any gay publication and you'll see that many gay men are in search of fairy tale love. They're looking for "Mr. Right," that perfect "special someone" who will fulfill their every need. These romantics pledge, and in turn expect, that sexual exclusivity will be their badge of true love. They imagine that monogamous bliss will sweep away all their problems and mark their (fantasy) relationship as a cut above all those who can't quite get it together to pull themselves out of the mire of "meaningless" one night stands, casual sex, and extra-relationship "cheating."

And even many of those who don't use fairy tale terms to describe their relationship pursuits still harbor the belief that a "real" relationship will signal itself through the desire for, or practice of, sexual exclusivity. Sexual freedom disappears when things get "serious".

But equating monogamy with love is a terrible, terrible mistake. Confusing the two reveals a profound misunderstanding of love and freights sex with an unsustainable meaning and profundity.

Love is not a sentiment nor emotion. Love is a decision to respect another's needs and desires on a par with one's own, a commitment to treat another with honesty and compassion. Love values freedom and celebrates another's happiness.

Jealousy and possessiveness do not, as imagined by romantics, signal love. Just the opposite-- they mean that love is not present. The jealous suitor who wants to possess his love object as his exclusive sexual property denigrates the freedom that is the basis for real love.

Love based on freedom and honesty doesn't mean that sexual attraction for others disappears. Possessive lovers who erroneously conflate sexual attraction and love thus virtually guarantee that resentments, dishonesties, and betrayals will develop. They are then likely to blame such conflicts on the wiles of sex rather than their own misunderstanding of love. They do not see that "love" predicated on sexual exclusivity is built on a foundation of sand.

Furthermore, using sex as some mystical and profoundly unique way to communicate love is unfair to sex itself. A wonderfully exciting and pleasurable sexual romp should not carry with it a sense of guilt for betraying one's love commitment to someone not present. Nor should one silently panic when the excitement unique to initial couplings inevitably matures. While romantics often interpret the loss of sexual fireworks to denote the death of a relationship (and thus move on in search of "true" love-- i.e., hotter sex), those who understand love better accept such sexual evolution. With sex, as with other matters, they enjoy the comforts afforded by familiarity and shared history while not foregoing the stimulus of new people and experiences.

As gay people, we should have a head start on escaping foolish notions about fairy tale love. But sadly, many of us seem eager to prove the respectability of our "love" by demonstrating that we can be just as possessive as any heterosexual prince charming or as "captivated" as any damsel.

Instead of subjugating love to the fickleness of sexual attraction and the tyranny of jealousy, let us put things in the right hierarchy. Sex should fall within the context of love, not the other way around. When conducted with honesty, respect, and compassion, all our actions-- sexual and otherwise-- show love. And when honesty, re

...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to Teledildonix (#28756):

Damn, it has been too long since a good old 'your value system is irrational and antiquated' post.

In Response to snipergirl (#28755):

Huh. For some reason this whole time I thought you were a ladies lady.

As per your question: I have been dumped a bunch of times and I can tell you that, although an interesting line of inquiry, and one which can help you vent a lot of anger, trying to figure out why people break up with you is a pretty fruitless occupation.

Basically, they do it because all people suck. Women and men make decisions sometimes that make no sense, and this is doubly true when romance is involved.

The old adage is always true: the best revenge is living well. Move on, slowly if you have to. Keep your life full. Meet someone fantastic, fuck their brains out, etc., etc. The only thing I would caution is that in my experience rebound hookups last a lot longer than you'd think.

In Response to Teledildonix (#28756):

Oh boy. I bet I'm jumping into the hornets nest naked, but I just have to respond:

Love is not a sentiment nor emotion. Love is a decision to respect another's needs and desires on a par with one's own, a commitment to treat another with honesty and compassion. Love values freedom and celebrates another's happiness.

Okay, so at best this is an interesting opinion piece. But it's stated as if it's some kind of factual statement or well-reasoned philosophy. Sounds more like this guy just wrote up how *he* wants to be treated, not what love really is. For many people, it is an emotion.

Besides, I prefer monogamy. Currently, I'm dating this girl exclusively (yes, I have moved on from the chick from London, even if I am moving there in a month) but I wouldn't call what we're engaged in "love", although all the mutual respect bullshit that the guy's talking about exists in our relationship.

There are people (myself included) who -- surprise, surprise -- actually *want* to be monogamous. I don't feel that way because of a need to conform to societal expectations. I like a sense of familiarity and predictability (which is not the same thing as being in a rut) with the person I'm with.

If monogamy really were a fairy tale, then no one would be able to do it, or maybe only 1/1000th of the population. But it seems like there are plenty of people who live fairly fulfilling lives in a moogamous relationship -- even, *gasp*, marriage.

Oh, and neat statistic here. I remember reading an article somewhere that the average lesbian has 8 lovers during their lifetime while a gay man has many dozens. So it seems like this is less an expression of a universal truth and more an interesting sociological phenomenon of the gay male. It's possible that if straight males had their way this number would be similar, so maybe it's a male thing overall.

In Response to Deathalicious (#28836):

I like a sense of familiarity and predictability

Are you incapable of being familiar, comfortable and predictable with more than one person at a time?

How does any relationship benefit from the exclusion of any others? Why should one friendship compete with another?

You made a friend at some point in your life. Later, you made a second friend... did you stop being friends with the first? Some time later, you made a third friend... did the first and second relationships lose their comfort, predictability, or other values merely because you developed the third? If so, was it simply because of jealousy and competition, or is there something else which could explain the spontaneous denigration of the earlier friendships?

If a person is incapable of having multiple nuanced relationships, each with its own complex and variable characteristics, what does that suggest about such a person? Is their capacity to befriend, to love, to care significantly about other people some kind of finite budget, from which they can only spend like a miser on their current favorite(s)? Would they wish to be able to feel goodwill and love towards other people without imposing limits?

The ability to form multiple healthy relationships simultaneously might be an indicator of emotional, mental, and social maturity. A person with a reasonable amount of stability in their personal life, enough confidence and familiarity with their friends (and with their own self), and sensitivity towards the feelings of others might be a person who can be happily promiscuous, in ways which are mutually appreciated by all parties involved. And it's not like they always have to be promiscuous, but certainly it would seem nice if they could be so when it felt appropriate.

I think it would also be nice if such people were afforded the same respect as those people who jealously form miserly exclusions in their relationships. The current social norms appear to punish people for maturity while rewarding people for emotional puerility. Being 'exclusive' with one person for a long period of time doesn't make you a hero-- it only shows that you're not trying anything else. It's not like there's anything particularly wrong with that, but it doesn't really seem like something to celebrate: Whoopee! We're always the same! Hooray for us! If it were more 'normal' for people to have casual, unrestrictive, open-minded approaches in their interpersonal affairs then we might begin to notice a reduction in conflict.

But of course we probably won't be able to do much testing of this idealistic theory because, as you and Zamphir are fond of saying, people suck. And most people get really uncomfortable any time significant change is suggested.

In Response to Teledildonix (#28839):

The current social norms appear to punish people for maturity while rewarding people for emotional puerility.

Okay, I don't believe I've ever gotten involved in a Teledildonix Shitstorm (tm) previously, but I can't let this one by. In fact, I resent the hell out of the judgemental tone that you take (don't act all hurt; that tone is exactly what you meant to express).

Your logical fallacy starts with the friendship analogy (keep one/establish new rather than only one at a time), then the assertion of emotional nuance, then concludes full-blown with the conclusion above.

Tel, you've found something that works for you. Great. Seriously, great; I'm glad that you've found a way of living that makes you (and hopefully, those you involve yourself emotionally with) happy. It differs from what most people find works for them. This is not a black-and-white world, and the model you've adopted neither makes you superior, nor the rest of us inferior.

Nor does my decision that I so cherish one person above all else so greatly mean that I'm emotionally stunted or beat down by societal pressure.

See how that works? You and I have different models for living. You think that yours is better than mine; I don't think either is "better" or should be "universal". One of us is crapping on the other because of how he's choosing to conduct life and love and here's a hint: it's not the big, bad, Straight White Male Oppressor.
 

In Response to Teledildonix (#28839):

Is their capacity to befriend, to love, to care significantly about other people some kind of finite budget,

My capacity to do all of these things is on some kind of finite budget. It is called 'time'.

In Response to Teledildonix (#28839):

Are you incapable of being familiar, comfortable and predictable with more than one person at a time?

That to me, quite simply, feels unfair of you Tele. I've read loads of your rants before and have found your ability not to exclude other peoples feelings from it quite noble and respectable, but at this point, asking if I am incapable of something (where we have not suggested incapability, merely preference) just to prove your point is not very nice at all.

I can see your idea of love in high quantity is a positive way of thinking, and could be appropriate to those who feel it, but I, like Death, do prefer the atmosphere of just 2. I guess to me it is a focus thing, where 'interacting' to just one other person I find more intense and concentrated. You can argue all you like about how this may be wrong, however this is merely a point of view and as I respect your views, please respect mine.

Being 'exclusive' with one person for a long period of time doesn't make you a hero-- it only shows that you're not trying anything else.

A HERO??? It sounds like you're starting to become someone on the path to "Stiking down the infidels!".

And not trying anything else is just the point. Maturity is about choice. You've made your choice to stay in the same 15 relationships. I'm sure at some stage you could even get bored of those 15 people, but you still choose to love those people. That's in essence the same as me, however I choose just 1, because I personally feel that is how my love is best served.

Jeez, mate.

In Response to Teledildonix (#28839):

Is their capacity to befriend, to love, to care significantly about other people some kind of finite budget, from which they can only spend like a miser on their current favorite(s)?

No, they have unlimited time and headspace to love every human in the world.

In Response to deerboy (#28842):

Your time is precious. Would you waste it on something pointless, petty, neurotic, and downright childish such as jealousy?

In Response to gtyrrell (#28841):

It differs from what most people find works for them.

Do most people find this because they all arrived independently at such a preference, or did countless millennia of tribalism and the pressure of social conformity have nothing to do with their preference?

neither makes you superior, nor the rest of us inferior

Your personal preference, in and of itself, is not necessarily "inferior". The social convention of elevating your preference to a high level of positive sanction, while punishing those who prefer otherwise, is an inferior behavior of the population at large. Your personal preference might not automatically make you a person who engages in jealous behavior (i hope!), but i stand by my opinion that jealous behavior is actually puerile and deserving of mockery as both irrational and hurtful.

Nor does my decision that I so cherish one person above all else so greatly mean that I'm emotionally stunted or beat down by societal pressure

Good for you. Does your decision that you cherish a favorite person above all others mean that you resent other third parties who might cherish your favorite person? Does it mean there's something wrong with you if you should happen to begin cherishing other special people in the future?

Snipergirl complained about the issue of being "dumped". She also complained about the issue of being monogamous with no satisfaction. My point was that a person who dismisses monogamy from the start is a person who will probably be less likely to have issues with being "dumped" or dissatisfied... mainly because these wouldn't be relevant topics in their life, given a certain degree of emotional maturity.

You and I have different models for living. You think that yours is better than mine

Wrong. I don't think my ideas (and ideals) are definitely better than yours. I'm merely pointing out specific ways in which my ideals can have some benefit while helping to avoid certain problems. If your ideals can also do this, i'd like to hear how. Unfortunately, neither you nor anybody else in this conversation has explained how monogamy, jealousy, and other such tribalistic behaviors are of any benefit.

In Response to unFalln (#28845):

asking if I am incapable of something (where we have not suggested incapability, merely preference) just to prove your point is not very nice at all

It wasn't nice? I'm honestly very sorry then. I had no desire to specifically demean you merely because of your personal preference. But i don't see why i shouldn't ask the questions. Why is it "nice" for people to be jealous; why is it "nice" for people to be possessive of a single favorite partner at the exclusion of other relationships? I guess we have different ideas about what constitutes "nice".

'interacting' to just one other person I find more intense and concentrated. You can argue all you like about how this may be wrong

I don't say this is "wrong"... not wrong for you, anyway, because you say this is how you wish to be. What i think is "wrong" is how most cultures tend to elevate your choice into a sacred instituation which is sanctioned by not only tribes and churches, but even by states and nations. That is wrong. That is setting up a double-standard, in which some relationships are given *special rights* and privileges and positive reinforcement at the explicit expense of those which are different.

A HERO???

I used the term "hero" because i see people everywhere childishly acting like there's something heroic about jealously attaching codependently to a single partner, and using this as justification for mistreatment of other people (and of each other in the 'partnership' sometimes) when i don't believe it makes them special at all.

People who conform to the tribalistic norm of this supposed "ideal exclusive romantic pair-bond" are given all sorts of rewards, starting with licenses and certificates which afford them special legal privileges, to things like discounted memberships for their partner, and so forth. This intentionally creates multiple classes of people in our society, further stratifying us into groups of married versus unmarried, exclusive versus inclusive, and so on.

I can't see how to justify this pointless type of social convention. It's bad enough that people are treated as "second-class" because of their gender, orientation, ethnicity, or whatever... but to then treat them as "third-class" because they also refuse to engage in jealous monogamy, well, that's outright idiotic.

Right now i'm just thanking my immense good fortune that i'm only a third- or fourth-class American because i'm a homosexual unmarried atheist. I can't imagine the horror of being a gay, unmarried, non-white, transgendered person of foreign ethnicity who happens to be stuck in this irrational culture. And from what i've heard, your Australian culture is only slightly different, and apparently has all of those same prejudices to a certain extent.

In Response to Elkamil (#28852):

Is their capacity to befriend, to love, to care significantly about other people some kind of finite budget, from which they can only spend like a miser on their current favorite(s)?

No, they have unlimited time and headspace to love every human in the world.

You don't need unlimited resources to love more than one special person in an intense, intimate, and devoted manner. If you don't wish to do so, that's your business, but it shouldn't be the business of the state to mandate that this type of irrational tribalistic (and usually religious) tradition be the only acceptable form of sanctioned conduct. In order to be fair, we should either give all types of relationships the special privileges and social sanctions that are given to monogamy-- or, in a far more logical way, we should give *no* special sanction in general to *any* type of relationship, and instead should evaluate relationships on their unique merits and qualities.

Don't forget that we couldn't even have this discussion during many thousands of years of human history because most cultures automatically arranged all marriages according to tribal and religious customs, and the element of personal choice was irrelevant. Does that seem like primitive behavior? Well, then, i guess related behaviors such as the glorification of monogamy and the punishment of promiscuity are also primitive.

In Response to Teledildonix (#28839):

The ability to form multiple healthy relationships simultaneously might be an indicator of emotional, mental, and social maturity. A person with a reasonable amount of stability in their personal life, enough confidence and familiarity with their friends (and with their own self), and sensitivity towards the feelings of others might be a person who can be happily promiscuous, in ways which are mutually appreciated by all parties involved.

Sorry, I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. I've known tons of people (strangely, mostly women) who were heavily into nonexclusivity. Most of them were extremely mature, confident, intelligent, liberated, creative, etc. They were also all pretty fucked up in the head in some way or another. I don't think that being comfortable with nonexclusivity makes you any better than someone who insists on monogamy; it just means you don't like being exclusive. And I have no beef with someone who wants to date more than one person at a time. They're just not going to be dating me.

Okay, maybe it's jealousy, maybe it's insecurity. Let's just say that I'm secure in my insecurity.

Oh, and how about this: let's assume I'm a total fuckup at forming healthy relationships. Let's assume that, unlike you and that guy who wrote the article, who apparently have mastered relating and connecting to other people, that I still have a few kinks to work out. Do you really recommend that I attempt to juggle two or more semi-healthy (or even nonhealthy) relationship at once? Better to focus on just one at a time until I get the hang of it.

I think it would also be nice if such people were afforded the same respect as those people who jealously form miserly exclusions in their relationships.

I completely agree. I would also argue that one must make a hard choice of which group -- monogamous or nonogamous -- you are going to belong to and stick to it at least for the duration of a relationship. You shouldn't start a open relationship with someone and then demand exclusivity, or start a relationship with someone and (I would argue) even appear to be monogamous and then become involved with other people. Obviously, two people can together make a shared decision to change. A perfect example of this is two people who start dating casually, then fall in love and marry. But if one or the other isn't open to this change, then really the mature (but painful) thing to do is end the relationship.

Once a relationship's over with, at that point you can make the change: "Next time I want a monogamous relationship" or "Next time I want an open relationship".

The current social norms appear to punish people for maturity while rewarding people for emotional puerility.

No, it punishes them for nonconformance to social norms, many of which have strong religious origins surrounding concepts of procreation and marriage. From that perspectives homosexuals are screwed (no pun intended) anyway. Promiscuity is generally not frowned upon so long as the actor is a straight male. And it's now considered normal for women to not be virginal on their wedding days.

Monogamous and non-monogamous individuals have equal potential to act on a mature level, so the social norms are not punishing "mature" people for this reason. However, I do think that overall society tends to prefer fairytale mentality overall: couples should be deeply and madly in love, the decision to marry should be presented as an elaborate (and sometimes embarrassing [goats.com] ) wedding proposal which should be followed by an elaborate wedding -- so it's no wonder that marriages often fail, because so often they're based on the wedding.

Personally, I feel that the gay marriage issue helped cement Bush's victory in 2004 (oh, that and Kerry being a total fucking moron, dumber in some ways than Bush), so part of me wishes they would drop the issue for the time being until all of this conservative mess is smooth...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to unFalln (#28845):

That to me, quite simply, feels unfair of you Tele. I've read loads of your rants before and have found your ability not to exclude other peoples feelings from it quite noble and respectable, but at this point, asking if I am incapable of something (where we have not suggested incapability, merely preference) just to prove your point is not very nice at all.

Hey, jerk! He was insulting me, not you! I'm the emotionally stunted one!

In Response to Teledildonix (#28874):

Hmmm...

Exclusivity/Monogamy <> Jealousy

Even though my current gF is a hottie, I have never wasted a moment on jealous thinking. Okay; that's not entirely true. I'm somewhat jealous of her encyclopedic knowledge of music. Does that count?

In Response to Teledildonix (#28877):

If you don't wish to do so, that's your business, but it shouldn't be the business of the state to mandate that this type of irrational tribalistic (and usually religious) tradition be the only acceptable form of sanctioned conduct.

I think it might be interesting to think about how those "tribalist" traditions might have developed. Perhaps it really was just the shaman on a power trip. But I'm inclined to think that it was a form of social evolution. To be sure, it is in ways a very convenient social package. I think it makes sense for there to be "family" memberships and that family members should have different rights than acquaintances. And it makes sense that if two people love each other, they should be able to join in a special manner. It's kind of hard to make an equivalent allowance in nonexclusive relationships. Is a gym supposed to let in 50 of your ongoing sexual partners under your plan just because you're particularly bawdy?

And if people are going to have offspring -- I know you find that detestable, even if you were one -- then both parents should, I think, be able to form a unit if they wish. It's a shame that ours has become a society of twos. There was a time when entire families lived together and shared responsiblities. If you want to talk about a godforsaken, manufactured social structure, the nuclear family should be sharpening your axe. Set up only a few centuries ago for the express purpose of disenfranchisement, the nuclear household sucks at pretty much everything but resource consumption.

But monogamous relationships make a lot of sense, I think, especially in straight relationships where even with the best of precautions the threat of procreation always looms.

In Response to Deathalicious (#28880):

I'm the emotionally stunted one!

You assume too much.