This has become a very interesting discussion. Thanks, Discom and GBM.
Here are some of my thoughts on relationship, attraction and dysfunction based on some research in the field of psychology (part of my business), observations of people (one of my hobbies), fascination with SP's and Poonsters (my main hobby).
This whole discussion revolves around one central question that is critical to all human behaviour -- What motivates people? The answer, without too much technical jargon, is always the same and elegantly simple. We do the things we do because we get rewarded for doing them or receive negative consequences for not doing them. There is no little inner man or woman with a separate personality that determines our choices. It is the external world and its reaction to what we do that determines whether we will do less or more of a particular action. The general rule of thumb that is often overlooked is that probably 90%+ of what we do is from that which we get rewarded for -- despite conventional wisdom (or conventional stupidity, really) that it is easier to motivate people negatively. This illusion comes about because certain negative consequences are very immediate and obvious and many positive consequences are longer-term and subtle.
When it comes to attraction to a particular partner, the research I've looked at slam-dunks conventional stupidity's "Duh, opposites attract, ya know!". Discom's therapist gets this. Dysfunction attracts dysfunction but maybe what he didn't get around to saying is that function attracts function just as often and is probably much more powerful.
I saw an article in the Globe and Mail recently that reported on studies of which couples are likely to have the longest term relationships and, again, without getting too technical, the more you have in common, the more likely you are to stay with a particular partner. Long-term couples are more likely to have similar world views, hobbies, sexual attractiveness quotients (yes, the beautiful do tend to stick together) … even to the point where couples are more likely to look similar than two random strangers.
Now, some brilliant conventional stupidity proponent out there is probably crafting a response to find the exception that supposedly disproves the rule.
Not so fast, poon-breath.
For every “opposites attract” story you come up with, I can find multiple long-term “likes attracts” from popular culture. Joanne Woodward and Paul Newman come immediately to mind (beautiful people, great actors and social activists), Joan Didion and John Gregory Dunne (two famous writers married for 40 years until his recent death), etc, etc.
Then the “Yeah, but …” people will find some little hole in the theory. “Yeah but, Paul Newman races cars and Joanne Woodward doesn’t!” Give your head a shake, once again, o ye of little grey matter, for the theory is that long-term couples are “more likely” to have things in common. It doesn’t say everything will be in sync.
From my personal experience, I have had four long-term, continuous and pretty well simultaneous approximate love affairs with women. I say “approximate” because some are sexual, some aren’t (but all would be if North America's sexual standards were the same as mine). In each case, I have found much more function than dysfunction to be the attraction. For over 20 years, I have maintained these affairs and the one similar thing about all of them is that in these pairings we develop each others positives much more than our dysfunctions. In one pairing, it is a sparking of intellectual and political ideas in each other that is the primary driver. In another, it is finding ways to empower others. In a third, it is gut-wrenching physical attraction. In all, there is a huge element of shared laughter. No, I don’t look exactly look like all these women but if you saw us out as couples, you would probably not say things like, “I wonder what she sees in him?” or vice versa.
My points (albeit incredibly long-winded) are that you may be attracted to an SP because of your paired dysfunctions but if it lasts a long time, I highly doubt it. All the long-term regulars I have enjoyed are women that build me up in places other than my groin, none lack a sense of humour and all look at the profession they have chosen as a positive contribution to society. Sorry, GBM, I see many SP’s who are far more virtuous overall than my church-going, back-stabbing neighbours. How many of them would trustingly welcome a stranger into their home with a hug, display their bodies for another’s pleasure and consider it a failure if that stranger didn’t explode in an orifice or two?
I consider that a virtue of the highest order and entirely functional. All one has to do is think of the stories of other cultures at other times – Polynesian, Inuit, some of our native North American tribes, where the smelly white Europeans were welcomed with the Chief’s offering of a Sabina, an Avarice or sometimes even his top wife who might have been a veritable Very Veronica. Do you really think these women wrestling around with strangers in grass huts, tents and igloos were looked down upon in their societies? In Greek culture, the prostitutes of the temples were the most sought after position for a woman of high-born status.
Boys, get your eyes up, there is a horizon to walk to and then another one when you get there.
I’m still walking.
Here are some of my thoughts on relationship, attraction and dysfunction based on some research in the field of psychology (part of my business), observations of people (one of my hobbies), fascination with SP's and Poonsters (my main hobby).
This whole discussion revolves around one central question that is critical to all human behaviour -- What motivates people? The answer, without too much technical jargon, is always the same and elegantly simple. We do the things we do because we get rewarded for doing them or receive negative consequences for not doing them. There is no little inner man or woman with a separate personality that determines our choices. It is the external world and its reaction to what we do that determines whether we will do less or more of a particular action. The general rule of thumb that is often overlooked is that probably 90%+ of what we do is from that which we get rewarded for -- despite conventional wisdom (or conventional stupidity, really) that it is easier to motivate people negatively. This illusion comes about because certain negative consequences are very immediate and obvious and many positive consequences are longer-term and subtle.
When it comes to attraction to a particular partner, the research I've looked at slam-dunks conventional stupidity's "Duh, opposites attract, ya know!". Discom's therapist gets this. Dysfunction attracts dysfunction but maybe what he didn't get around to saying is that function attracts function just as often and is probably much more powerful.
I saw an article in the Globe and Mail recently that reported on studies of which couples are likely to have the longest term relationships and, again, without getting too technical, the more you have in common, the more likely you are to stay with a particular partner. Long-term couples are more likely to have similar world views, hobbies, sexual attractiveness quotients (yes, the beautiful do tend to stick together) … even to the point where couples are more likely to look similar than two random strangers.
Now, some brilliant conventional stupidity proponent out there is probably crafting a response to find the exception that supposedly disproves the rule.
“Well, how about me and my wife – she’s a Rastafarian, I’m a Seventh Day Adventist. She spends all day knitting dog sweaters while I collect nose hair from monks all over the world. She looks like Angelina Jolie while I am dwarf with a face like Golum. See, opposites attract!!”
Not so fast, poon-breath.
For every “opposites attract” story you come up with, I can find multiple long-term “likes attracts” from popular culture. Joanne Woodward and Paul Newman come immediately to mind (beautiful people, great actors and social activists), Joan Didion and John Gregory Dunne (two famous writers married for 40 years until his recent death), etc, etc.
Then the “Yeah, but …” people will find some little hole in the theory. “Yeah but, Paul Newman races cars and Joanne Woodward doesn’t!” Give your head a shake, once again, o ye of little grey matter, for the theory is that long-term couples are “more likely” to have things in common. It doesn’t say everything will be in sync.
From my personal experience, I have had four long-term, continuous and pretty well simultaneous approximate love affairs with women. I say “approximate” because some are sexual, some aren’t (but all would be if North America's sexual standards were the same as mine). In each case, I have found much more function than dysfunction to be the attraction. For over 20 years, I have maintained these affairs and the one similar thing about all of them is that in these pairings we develop each others positives much more than our dysfunctions. In one pairing, it is a sparking of intellectual and political ideas in each other that is the primary driver. In another, it is finding ways to empower others. In a third, it is gut-wrenching physical attraction. In all, there is a huge element of shared laughter. No, I don’t look exactly look like all these women but if you saw us out as couples, you would probably not say things like, “I wonder what she sees in him?” or vice versa.
My points (albeit incredibly long-winded) are that you may be attracted to an SP because of your paired dysfunctions but if it lasts a long time, I highly doubt it. All the long-term regulars I have enjoyed are women that build me up in places other than my groin, none lack a sense of humour and all look at the profession they have chosen as a positive contribution to society. Sorry, GBM, I see many SP’s who are far more virtuous overall than my church-going, back-stabbing neighbours. How many of them would trustingly welcome a stranger into their home with a hug, display their bodies for another’s pleasure and consider it a failure if that stranger didn’t explode in an orifice or two?
I consider that a virtue of the highest order and entirely functional. All one has to do is think of the stories of other cultures at other times – Polynesian, Inuit, some of our native North American tribes, where the smelly white Europeans were welcomed with the Chief’s offering of a Sabina, an Avarice or sometimes even his top wife who might have been a veritable Very Veronica. Do you really think these women wrestling around with strangers in grass huts, tents and igloos were looked down upon in their societies? In Greek culture, the prostitutes of the temples were the most sought after position for a woman of high-born status.
Boys, get your eyes up, there is a horizon to walk to and then another one when you get there.
I’m still walking.
