It has never been uncommon for people to attempt to "marry up", but even within the dating world this hierachy system undermines potential relationships. Girl A likes Boy A who likes Girl B who likes Boy C... It's as though we are programmed to seek out someone just out of our reach. We want someone who is better than us as a psychological conquest where we increase our own self image of worth by being with with an individual who stands on a taller imaginary pillar. If you date 'beneath' you, a sense of settlling overcomes and these perceptions (cuz thats all they really are) damage relationships.
So ideally we would find someone on par with our own image. Furthermore, the potential mate must also deduce a false sense of equality within you.
Fortunately, I have no desire to date right now, but i'm not exactly ethused about the mating dance i'll have to perform when that feeling subsides.
4 comments:
I wrote about this very same topic last year. The entry should be in my livejournal in the month of March i beleive. I agree with what you wrote. People do date people who are better than them.
Agreed. You know I always like guys just out of my reach. And they always like girls who don't like them back nearly as much I do. Craziness.
So, theoretically, in an "ideal" relationship, both partners feel that they are 'dating up', i.e. that their partner is really their better half. How does this affect expectations and perceived roles within the relationship then? Seems like we as a culture are setting ourselves up for disappointment, as one or (more likely) both partners will end up disappointed with some aspect of their mate. In a less simplistic view, then, if partners are complementary (that is, each is better in areas that the other is weak in), then both can consider themselves 'dating up' and both can be right, without the necessary disappointment. The trick, then, is to find someone who is your perfect complement, I guess. Or maybe I'm just thinking too hard...
Seeking complementation makes sense so that each individual can grow with the help and strengths of their partner. I also agree, if both people were under the illusion that they were dating up, then it would be ideal. Unfortunately that excludes the possibility of both people having an 'accurate' perception of both individuals worth. Ignorance is bliss right?
Maybe the innate worth balancing should be ignored all together in search of the best compliment, because if you find a good compliment then the questions of who is 'better' becomes irrelevant. Which individual will be able to help you better yourself is then seated paramount.
What you propose asks the question "How much can you help me?” as appose to “How good are you?” It seems more selfish, but less elitist. What if the first question could simply be a category in determining the answer to the second? So the key is simply to condition yourself to determine worth on a personalized scale derived from your own weaknesses. Based on your criteria, Girl A could be the best choice or the most worthy choice of Boy A and vice versa, since they are no longer waited on the same criteria. In fact, they would be largely waited by the opposite criteria. At least this theory doesn’t require the disillusion of one or both parties.
Post a Comment