Relationship culture: purposes, hedonism, self‑entitlement, and more

In this article, we will explore some issues that have developed in our culture of romantic relationships. While these observations are largely grounded in an Australian context, our focus is on some core relationship qualities and how different behaviours and philosophies can affect them. It appears that a key factor missing from our collective psyche is understanding of our personal responsibilities with regards to how we relate to others. Note that analyses such as these obviously do not refer to abuse victims, who are in no way responsible for their victimisation, or those who are incapacitated to the extent that they require more relational care than most others.

Relationships: for ourselves, others, or society?

Quality relations are a need, not simply nice to have. We not only enjoy relations, but our mental health and quality of life can suffer when we are isolated. We can even observe changes in brain activity when interactions are had. Quality relations involve both receiving and making contributions, support that allows each party to grow in a way that no other phenomenon allows. This not only means sharing comforting experiences, but also facing challenges when it helps us to grow. While doing good for others only for self-fulfilment disregards its virtue, this is not to suggest that personal desire is not important. Our minds need stimulation that only relatedness can bring. It is with this reality that we encounter the question of what should motivate us to seek relationships.

Certain philosophies suggest that real love involves none of one's own desire or happiness, but is about giving to others. They ironically suppose both that a person should not seek a relationship unless they are completely satisfied within themselves, and that they will be miserable if they do not pursue one. This creates a fallacy in which there is something fundamentally wrong with everyone who is not both completely satisfied within themselves and in a relationship. An often-accompanying argument is that true happiness is found not via a healthy emotional balance, but by following what are considered to be our fates and duties ― which in this case effectively means blindly following sexual instructions programmed in to us by nature without regard for our individual aspirations. Society was never made perfect by people being submissively conformist, and its downfall will not be solved by same; we must be allowed to be members of society with our own journeys and eccentricities. In stark comparison, however, is an over-reaction to this restriction: a tendency for people to focus on themselves in relationships and pursue them only for their own desires. The problem is that when we attune our minds to particular goals and ideas, we tend to hyper-focus so that they influence our behaviours with less attention given to alternative ideas which may be healthier. So if we identify a desire for relations only for our own benefits, without a specified determination to contribute to the other person, then a broader range of our relational behaviours will inadvertently be attuned to fulfilling those same desires.

This latter ethos is the issue for discussion here, but as a segue, we can conclude thus. While certain approaches to relationships may be more conducive to healthy psychology and others still are inherently destructive, within bounds there are a variety of forms which relations may take which, in their place, may contribute to a person's sense of meaning and purpose. This given, with the choice of approach to a relationship comes the responsibility for both the risks and the rewards. And we should never expect our partner to do for us what we can and should do for ourselves.

Where hedonism and avoidance have damaged dating

The issue of only focussing on the self in relationships could be born of two tendencies: hedonism (seeking pleasure as a primary motivator) and avoidance (refusing to engage with that which makes us uncomfortable). These tendencies occur because we often interpret internal discomfort as a threat regardless of what actually has caused it, and pleasure and comfort as good regardless of their consequences ― and phenomena such as facing challenges and taking personal responsibility are unconsciously some of the most common sources of this discomfort. In response, we attune our minds to what is most pleasurable to prevent us from focussing on the anxiety that we implicitly assume would disable us should we become too aware of it. But what is pleasurable is not always in our best interests, and what is uncomfortable is often necessary for us to face to maintain a healthy, resilient mind ― apart from being significantly less threatening than what we assume. For us to fulfil core needs, our relations must be sufficiently deep and involved. If we are indeed experiencing mass despondency in our relational lives, it could be because we have learned to surrender to these tendencies and are therefore suffering from relationships that do not fulfil those core needs even though they feel pleasurable — and in our lack of awareness of this, seek futile explanations rather than taking accountability. As long as consent and adulthood are established, we must have the freedom to choose these lifestyles, but this does not mean that all of them are psychologically optimal.

One manifestation of this issue is a desire for instant gratification as a primary relational goal. Sometimes this is explicit, in which relations are deliberately transactional, short-lived, and purely for the purpose of sexual pleasure ― often called "hook-ups". A more subtle hedonistic and avoidant tendency occurs when we, unfortunately and often through no fault of our own, exit failed relationships and unintentionally become defensive against further disappointment by resolving to "date for ourselves" and not compromise on what we expect of our future partner. While boundaries and standards are important for everyone, too often this unintentionally results in forgetting what is reasonable to expect from someone else and what another person may need. By doing this, we are avoiding an uncomfortable reality: that even if our past disappointments were not our fault, they have nothing to do with the next person we date ― indeed, that person will not even know us or our situation. If we become too protective, each person we meet will likely interpret this as exclusivity or aloofness and assume that these are our qualities. The failure of the interaction occurs not because we were incompatible, but because we did not realise how our attitudes affected our behaviours. Nobody can force us to adopt an approach to dating, but we also can not force another person to accept us.

Elsewhere, we may approach dating impulsively by making ourselves believe that we are ready for a serious relationship because of the allure of intense romance and having someone make us feel desired. I have lost count of the people of whom I have become aware or known myself who have done this, met someone who was also ready, and then withdrawn shortly after because they were "not in the right place", or they "wanted a relationship but were not sure when they would have the time". Others still claim that they will "make time for the right person", as if more time will exist when a certain person appears. Similar is when people think that a "serious relationship" is focussed first on sexual gratification and build relations entirely on that, before discovering that emotionally and intellectually they have nothing in common with their partner. For this reason, I argue that being blatant about our needs and intentions from the start of an interaction, including by defining what a "serious relationship" means for the individuals involved, is crucial. And while the fantasy of romance is alluring, remember that the other person may be more ready and more serious than we are ― so before rushing to date them, we should consider the risk of potentially hurting them if we are not ready for the commitment. Relationships are about all parties' feelings and not just our own.

A corollary of this is in the psychological differences between seeking sexual gratification and seeking meaningful love. Sexual desire is important for most of us. If we have an especially strong libido or interest in sexually exotic practices but still desire long-term romantic commitment, we may involve ourselves in communities such as Internet websites catering to these sexual pursuits. We may find a scarcity of others with the same long-term relational goals, but no shortage of those willing to send unsolicited sexually explicit messages with the hope of finding convenient satisfaction. Theoretically it is possible for any person to find a date anywhere, with any combination of qualities, and we certainly must not apologise for sexual harassment. But a key lesson is that people seek environments which tend to their desires. Basing a serious relationship on sexual practices might be particularly difficult because the phenomenology of proper love is different to the psychology of sexual hedonism. The first involves patience and willingness to persevere through challenges, on the basis that the effort is outweighed by the fulfilling ends. The second is entirely for instant gratification. Our minds influence the rest of our functioning based on how we attune them, so if all of our actions are attuned to one goal and we search where others want the same, it is less likely that people of the opposing goal will also be there.

The self-fulfilling prophecy of a toxic society

Taken further, avoidance manifests when we conclude that our dating problems are the fault of society. A common example occurs when people write on Internet forums that "society is toxic, and all [men/women/other individuals of specified gender whom that person has dated] are the same". This often results when they have been mistreated or traumatised, and their mind becomes attuned to negative cues and over-compensates by misinterpreting events as threatening to defend against further traumatisation. Due to the same tendencies that help keep anxiety tamed, one may also avoid self-reflecting on their own role in a situation because taking responsibility is uncomfortable. Due to these thoughts and emotions, they unintentionally exude negativity, resentment, bitterness, and being untrusting (or untrustworthy). When people reject them because of these qualities, they rationalise them as just more examples of others being toxic, and so the cycle continues.

Ghosting

A final major problem is "ghosting", which means to inexplicably cease communicating with someone (usually electronically) and effectively end the relationship that way. It is another avoidant tendency, rationalising that because we feel uncomfortable about formally ending a relationship, an easier alternative is acceptable (making excuses to support it in the process), and that we have a moral claim to our own comfort without regard for politeness and the feelings of the other person. Does that supposition remain true in light of those who complain that society is toxic while believing in ghosting people just because "the vibe wasn't right"?

It may not be your fault, but it is your responsibility

A certain amount of liberalisation, especially with regard to our legal rights and bodily autonomy, of our relational norms was much needed for most of human history ― and this is still to happen in some parts of the world. Safety, consent, and boundaries are absolutely essential for any relationship to be healthy, regardless of other factors present. That discussion of abusive relationships is gaining prominence in the public forum educates people on how to avoid harm and holds perpetrators accountable (or at least it should). But this does not mean that the core relational needs considered conventional were socially engineered. They are inherent to us, and past societal wrongs were based on either distortions of these psychological principles or blatant lies. We all face problems which are not our fault. But relationships involve the needs and feelings of all parties involved, and it will not solve our problems to expect prospective partners to sacrifice their own emotional wellbeing, be perfect, or make for an "easy" dating experience to gratify us. In fact, it will simply make all people involved unhappy. And even if we do everything "correctly" in life, success is never guaranteed and dictating what others in the dating pool "should" do will not create it. We must take the risk of choosing our ethos. If we desire consideration for ourselves, we must be considerate of others, be sincere, and realise that our core needs require commitment and not quick gratification. Let us reframe the matter and consider that, given that relationships of all kinds are our greatest virtue as humans, persevering through the challenges and bettering ourselves for the sake of better relations is a healthy motivation. Let us cherish them as such, because all the instant gratification in the world can not equate to the experience of loving and being loved. And if you are experiencing problems in your relations, please never take advice from popular culture, and instead get trustworthy help.

---

Thought of the month

Emotions may not always appear logical, be easy to process, or suggest that we do what is in our best interests. But whether we like it or not, they will affect every single one of us. We either work with them compassionately, or allow our problems to worsen.