I am not logical.

[azekeil]

Let me explain this to you logically.

I was first started thinking down this route by a throw-away comment from kissycat1000 yesterday which was along the lines of the fact that I was illogical in some ways (and stubborn, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make).

Then, reading a couple of posts including this post by stephmog, I came to realise that no, I'm not logical, and here's why.

In a monogamous lifestyle, any relationship you start is doomed to failure, except for the last one. As you have no way of finding out if any particular relationship is the last you will ever have until you have it (uncertainty principle anyone?) the best way to avoid failure is simply not to start any relationships (if you're monogamous^[1]).

But I still persist in pursuing relationships - which is clearly not logical. This means that my human needs are more important than logic - so I would suggest that no one is logical who follows logic, and anyone that does is illogical (and also sad, deluded and giving in to their fears). It's all just common sense really ;)

[1] Okay, now this breaks down because I'm not monogamous (in theory), but I've yet to decide if other relationships I have will be secondary or primary, but I've a strong feeling they will be secondary, in which case this argument, which is about a life partner, still applies.

Comments

[nemy.livejournal.com]

Logic is over-rated in my professional opinion.

[sarah-mum.livejournal.com]

The basic premise of this is that relationships are binary in nature and being 'on' or 'off' equates to them being 'successful' or 'failed'. This is clearly utter nonsence, relationships being fluid multi-state things.
You are in fact trying to apply logic to emotion - something which clearly illogical. This is akin to saying that because we all die, life is illogical.
If you take the 'selfish gene' track, in which case multiple relationships (whether serial or parallel) are perfectly logical, but birth control isn't.

I'm failing to see the distinction here between poly and mono, unless you're accepting that poly relationships are designed not to last, but at least you *know* that at the start #confused#

And another thing...

[sarah-mum.livejournal.com]

Your *logic* boils down to this -It's ultimately futile, why bother?
I'll tell you why - because of the sheer emotional high of course! Because of and in spite of all the pain - because of the emotion, because of all the things it makes us *feel*. Surely that is what makes us human?
All relationships are based not on altruism, but on the desire to make us feel better about ourselves. Which may just have disproved your *logical* approach.




This is turning into a *pint* style discussion.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

My post is an outlook on my personal decisions, not on mono/poly in general (as I point out my choices are unclear even to me right now).. and see below..

Re: And another thing...

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

*grin*

Yes, I guess that's the basis of my argument. Emotions aren't logical, so trying to apply logic to them can only fail.

[sarah-mum.livejournal.com]

In a monogamous lifestyle, any relationship you start is doomed to failure/i>
Sort of implies that this differs in some way to poly relationships, doesn't it?

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Implies, yes, states, no. I was merely clarifying that I was specifically talking about monogamous lifestyles, not any other lifestyles.

[sarah-mum.livejournal.com]

In any case, I disagree sbout the doomed thing.

Now excuse me a moment, I must step outside and remove my bonnet - it appears to have a bee in it.

[stuartl.livejournal.com]

I see the flaw in the logic as the assumption that a relationship that comes to an end being a failed relationship.

From an emotional perspective a short/medium term relationship can be successful if it offers the emotional support one requires.

From a logical reproductive/human needs/genetic desires/Darwin theory perspective such a short or medium term relationship may also fulfil the requirements. If it results in reproduction Darwin is happy.

From my perspective viewing any relationship as "doomed" from the start is fundamentally flawed.

Unless you require that your first relationship is long term, permanent, until death etc. Which is ludicrous. How can one find out what one wants from a relationship without having one?

How can one expect that ones needs will stay constant for the duration of a relationship?

A short/medium term relationship is not doomed, it's entirely natural. A long term relationship is unusual. It's unusual in a good way but it's still against human nature.

[invisigoth51.livejournal.com]

Not so.

Define failure.

It's possible to have relasionships that end for amny reasons, namely, moving away, drifting apart, realising you'd rather be friends, even the bad kind.
But we get something out of each of our relasionships, and ultimatly they probably made us happy even if just for a short time. So maybe you fail to find a life partner to breed with. But this does not equate to failure.

If (great Cthulhu forbid), my relationship with Tom ever ends, i will in no way consdier it a failure as we have made each other very happy for many years and learnt alot from each other. I'm sure you feel the same way about kissycat. We wouldn't change the time we spent with them for the world.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Hm, yes, perhaps you're right that the assumption that a relationship that ends is a failure is incorrect. More thinking required.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

No, true. I think you're in essence saying what stuartl said above, that the end of a relatoinship shouldn't necessarily be considered a failure.

I need to do some more thinking about this, more specifically about the need to 'build a life together/including someone'.

[invisigoth51.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it's possible to build a life of your own which always has room for someone no matter who that someone is.
The whole problem with trying to plan for relationships and stuff... is you just can't choose who you meet and when, you can't even drop everything and go looking coz that probably won't work.
I think some people almost put their lives on hold, waiting to meet someone, but who wants to meet a needy looser? Better to build your life the way you want, and if you're the optimistic type... leave a gap for someone or be prepared to make room if they show up.
Personally, if i was in your situation i would really use my extra free time to build my hobbies and career, people who do loads of stuff (can) be the most interesting... and at the end of the day you'll be able to say - wow - i did a shit load of stuff with my life.
I'll be curious to see what kissycat does when the kids are grown up, she'll still be young, it's hard to do much when you have family responsibilities.... but myself i have an inkling i'll be reading her blog from halfway round the world in 20 years time... and she'll barely be middle aged. Think of all the stuff you might want to do together then... think how much more you could do if you'd spent those 20 years becoming disgustingly rich!
We've all got time and youth on our side at the moment, don't consign yourself to settling down until the old age and arthritis require it... because even then you'll probably have another 20 years to enjoy being settled at home, think how dull that will be if you'd spent the previous 20 doing the same thing.

I realise that 'settling down' may be not what you meant by building a life together... i'm just saying, there's pleanty of time.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Oh trust me, I've given this a LOT of thought. I just don't have time to articulate it all now. I am pursuing a career, doing up my house, having a relationship, looking after children.. I'm not having much of an independent social life but I have too many other priorities on my time right now. I will be changing that once my house is done 'enough'.