Anonymous asked:
yeah basically, or more like the idea of trying to attract such a man doesn’t activate weird insecurities, because I don’t feel insecure about qualities I don’t actually care about
unfortunately I think trying to date people who are interested in you for the qualities you value most in yourself is probably the right move on many levels
(As I understand it) To be liked ‘for’ anything is always, in the end, unsatisfactory; and in the interim, a source of insecurity. All such external characteristics - the body, the heart-mind, the fortuitous circumstances of finding you agree on important things - are transitory, and perhaps more treacherously fleeting than one imagines.
Yes, there is a ‘transactional’ or ‘self-interested’ component in all relating; that is a part of the human condition. Part of this is the use of external characteristics as indicators and filters; part is deciding what boundaries and engagement is actually beneficial in any given situation. This is what I’d call the practicalities.
And yes, there’s also the entire range of zero-sum control strategies, including ones that operate one level higher by arranging circumstances and choreographing interactions to lead the feeling-state of the other person in a carefully controlled direction, etc. Now, the non-zero-sum individual components of ‘game’ are actually very useful (and woefully neglected by lots of people because of where they come from, is my guess). But most people have no idea that taking on the basic framing that ‘game’ advice is presented in causes you to lose the game before you even begun playing. Or that there are other frames than the default (and miserable) one, which don’t involve neurotically juggling plates and knives while standing one-legged atop a house of cards. Becoming aware of the tradeoffs here, and picking a path through them that expresses your own values, is indispensable to your integrity - and also a part of the practicalities. Perhaps it’s the hardest one.
And yes, if you find that being appreciated for something (as distinct from being sought out for it) raises up a storm… great! Mmmmmm, that’s the juice of life, right there. I’ve developed a taste for it now, and grown to love it (uhh, in manageable quantities, to be clear).
But at the end of the day, the movement and opening of the heart towards another is a gift, and a precious one at that. And it can be terrifying - after all, in spite of all our attempts, when this movement is deep and genuine, there is nothing in there to hold on to, nothing we can draw security from, nothing we can control so as to make sure the love (or approval/intimacy/sex/whatever) keeps flowing.
All the lover can do in good faith is create the best conditions for this gift to do what it will, to give it fertile ground and sun and water and care and protection. This is a skill all its own, and much rarer and more precious than the strategising of those who think themselves the Machiavellis of the heart.
“How or why did it happen?”, you ask, perhaps because you want to further know, “How can I make sure she stays? Can I ensure I find another like her again, if I have to?” This kind of control is not given you. How could it be, after all, without reducing her to something over whom you can have affordances? Without reducing her agency? Without crimping the free and joyous expression of the dance of her being - the same dance that drew you to her in the first place?
And to be OK with that, while still skillfully managing the practicalities - that is the razor’s edge on which the heart of the lover walks.
Questions:
Don’t you like some people better than others? Aren’t there some characteristics that are correlated with that? Doesn’t that mean that to some extent you like people for those characteristics?
Isn’t reducing your agency kind of a key part of relationships? Why is that bad? Is it bad for countries to make treaties with each other?