Sparking Controversy: WIGSF Back Atcha

Whatigotsofar has an opinion about my last post. Honestly it was something I threw out there knowing that it was going to be controversial because I made a lot of generalizations about a subject that always gets people riled up. The title was "How To Get A Girl and Keep Her" but really I'm only be speaking for one girl, and that's me. There are lots of other female humans out there on planet Earth. Some of the points might apply to some other women, but I make no guarantees.

I published the post without making any elaborate disclaimers because, well, it's a blog post. The amount of small print that could have gone into footnotes for that post is measurable in miles.

So, I understand if not everyone agrees with all of my points, as applicable to their own lives. Some women might prefer their men to choose flattery over honesty. Some women might write off men that get stuck in the Friend Zone. Those points are totally valid.

But WIGSF went one step further and accused me of being dishonest about how the points apply to my own life. If I read his rebuttal correctly, he thinks that Ken is only the Good Husband that he is because I engaged in such sneaky and successful brainwashing practices throughout our courtship and beyond.

Here's a direct quote from WIGSF:
Ultimately, the fundamental flaw in her thesis is that women want to be loved. I respectfully disagree. Women are humans. The history of humanity is the history of control. Women want control. Only, they like to be sly about it.

I've got to hand it to him. It's the truth. OK, it's one facet of the truth. But I will strenuously assert that it is not the whole truth.

Now, WIGSF, I'm about to get personal. I'm not aiming to hurt your feelings. But you went there first, so get ready to take what you dished out.

I think this is about personal belief systems. It's about, and this is sadly a common view in our cynical, alienated society, a belief that true love between men and women is impossible. Those who say they have it are either lying, deluded, or both. And it's a thesis that's impossible to disprove, just like the psychiatrist who is never wrong: it's always the patient who's in denial.

At one point in my life, I lost faith in the idea of love. I took a 2-year, part-time psychology course, with the intention of becoming a psychotherapist. What I learned about human nature in that course shattered a lot of my naive illusions. I became finely attuned to the ulterior motives behind peoples' behaviours. I began to mistrust everyone.

Here are some of the thoughts I had during those days:
My mother says she's proud of me, but it's not about me at all. She just wants to show off to her friends and she's using me to do it. That's not love.
My friend says we're BFF's, but she's just using me as a dumping ground for all her worries. Now that I'm professionally trained as a therapist, she wants to get my skills for free. That's not love.
My relatives say they want me to attend family gatherings because they care about me, but really they have this idea in their head of what should happen at these gatherings, and they don't like it when reality doesn't comply. It's just about meeting their expectations so that they can feel comfortable with themselves. That's not love.
Men just want sex and someone to clean the toilet for them. That's not love.

By the end, I was able to discredit any and all claims of anyone that they loved me. As far as I could see, they all just wanted a piece of me for their own selfish reasons. I mean, what's love, anyway? Being "in love" is infatuation; there's sexual attraction; there's family obligation; and what's left?

If I only make dinner because I know you'll do the dishes, have I done you a service out of the goodness of my heart, or are we simply roommates negotiating a fair division of labour? Did you give me a Valentine's Day card because you're thoughtful, or did I just become the cheapest prostitute in the city?

IMHO, the truth is that the urge of love and the urge for power/control co-exist in all of us. Often, the urge to control wins. One sign of real love is that it surrenders. Some might say that if you surrender, you've lost. That's not love, it's defeat. But it's not, if you willingly choose to surrender because you care about the relationship more than you care about your ego.

Western culture has declared that each person's ego should be their first priority. We all gotta look out for #1, y'know? New Age thinking contains a big dose of this philosophy. Self-sacrifice is not cool in this day and age. And then we wonder why our relationships are so often superficial and unsatisfying.

I don't advocate that everyone should become a martyr. I'm not one. I don't sacrifice everything to Ken, and he doesn't sacrifice everything to me. I guess our relationship works because we have a tacit agreement on how much each of us will sacrifice, and we try to keep it balanced. Yes, there is still a calculating element in this. Yes, I will be willing to give Ken control of the TV remote, but that's because I know he'll probably give it over to me tomorrow night. Is that love? Or is that just more tactical strategizing?

I say it's love, and that's because I get a good feeling when something I give up allows Ken to get something that puts a smile on his face. I'm not so selfless that I'd do it infinitely without reciprocity, but there's something beyond just the tally of favours on a balance sheet that brings happiness to my heart. Seeing him happy brings me happiness, even if it means I had to give something up that I wanted. And vice versa.

That's love.

Let the debate continue!