All the Lonely People...

I have been thinking a lot about relationships lately.

Not that this is particularly unusual. Relationships are fascinating to me; they're so complicated. Especially when love is involved. Then it's supremely complicated. Because, as far as I've seen, love is one of the only things that makes a rational person act irrationally.

Other things I can think of: 1) insanity, 2) depression, 3) philosophical confusion.

U. and I had a relatively long conversation today, as we do on occasion, where we tried to Get Somewhere in our thoughts on relationships. It started because she wanted to know what I thought about historical in-love (historical story in-love, mostly) versus contemporary in-love. What, she wanted to know, did I think were the differences?

We agreed that historically it seems like maybe it was more of a crap-shoot. In-love is all about instant passion--what with all the stories about Boy Sees Girl, Boy Thinks Girl is Pretty, Boy Does Insane Things In Name of Love For Girl. This concept seems timeless, I guess, but I think it's growing more archaic. Neither of us liked this option of in-love, because 1) the be-all-end-all virtue of Girl in this scenario is visual beauty, which in reality doesn't say a whole lot except that Girl is fun to look at, which sucks for Girl and feminism is general, and 2) this is a pretty precarious situation. This story usually ends in Marriage, which is happy and probably followed by great sex. But what about when they have to buy a house? Or go see a movie? Or spend time in each other's company, in general? NIX this story. It's too pretty and too simplistic.

The interesting thing is, historically, in-love was definitely not the big deal it is now. If we're gonna get REALLY historical, you were probably matched with someone whose parents made a deal with your parents. If we're gonna get kinda historical, you usually just kinda picked someone who you might have thought was kind of cute, but who definitely had the same socioeconomic status, lived in the same village, and didn't have a deadly disease yet.

So, maybe historical in-love is so optimistic and outlandish because it wasn't expected for everybody anyway? I don't know.

Anyway, it seems like these days, romantic stories are all about the big connection. At least, the pre-courtship process (i.e. I like you, let's get to know each other, now we're friends, and I really like you, etc.) is much more important than the actual marriage at the end. Now there's almost always a break-up involved because of miscommunication, and a getting-back-together due to the fact that both (cue sappy song) are reminded of the other by something they both relate to.

Before, crisis was more about things keeping the lovers apart (families, dragons, y'know). Now, crisis is about miscommunication.

(By the way, I should just throw in that this is all semi-ignorant, unresearched speculation.)

That wasn't really the interesting part of our conversation, though.

We talked about our own problems with relationships, which are all remarkably similar, and sort of newly archetypal it seems. Here are the stages:

1. Boy meets girl.
2. Boy and girl fall in love.
3. Boy romances girl with lots of wildly impractical, utterly romantic statements.
4. Girl is mostly practical, but smitten.
5. Boy abruptly ends all statements; relationship.
6. Girl says a number of wildly impractical, possibly quite angry, utterly romantic statements.
7. Boy eventually declares Stage 5 moot--picks up Stage 3 again.
8. Repeat Stage 5.
(Stages 5-7 might happen a few times.)
9. What happened to boy? Who knows? He is probably in Timbuktu. Girl becomes much more practical. Girl is looking for new Boy. But girl is unsure how to alter feelings.

I don't know what "the end" is, except, I think, Girl eventually falls in love again. That's really the only way I've seen out of the story. That's what we've all agreed is the only conceivable end.

It's not a story anyone wants to play around with once they're out of it--it's a relief to end the process, and usually there's lots of horrifying stuff in the middle no one wants to remember. Any guy is done at Stage 8; there's no other way to put it. Any Stage 9 girl would prefer simply not to think about any prior stage, because the first ones are wildly sentimental and the later are painful and fatiguing.

And Stage 9 is really not so awful a stage. At that point, it's much less obsessive. It's much less painful. It's usually even hopeful. It's mostly spent waiting or looking for someone new. It's really only a problem when one dwells on the story itself.

In terms of personal experience, especially talking with people I know, this is the new love story.

It seems like what everyone has problems with is the part where Boy comes back into the picture, contradicting his Ending statements by reiterating his Beginning ones. This part is decidedly shitty, because it 1) apparently confirms Girl's suspicions that Boy was deluding himself out of feelings (for various optional reasons, but I'll stay out of subcategories), and 2) gives Girl hope when Boy repeats Stage 5, that Stage 7 is logically to follow.

Despite all rationality, it's easy to think the story will eventually end at Stage 7 instead of Stage 5.

Which is why it's hard for all of my friends to alter their feelings.

----

In my mind, this must all be about miscommunication. If Boy explained his feelings at every step in process following Stage 5, things would make more sense to Girl. I think, though, inevitably, that would either cast Boy in a bad light, or force him to hurt Girl which he doesn't want despite not wanting a relationship.

At the same time, I know this is very much colored by my experience as a Girl. I'm positive Boy has a very different idea of it.

Also, applying science to romance is difficult. You try it.

----

In other news, 2/5 applications done.

I'm afraid I'm falling too much in love with the "pink city", and the odds of getting into any program are very much against me.

Oh well. [Insert some quote about never failing only because you never try.]