[personal profile] floorpigeon
So I'm avoiding studying (...again) and so surfing OKCupid for people-watching (what does it say when you're too lazy to people-watch by actually going to watch people in a cafe? haha). It's sort of sad/scary to me how so many people I like are way more open emotionally than me (which is how I interpret the fact that like, 85% of the geeks on OKC in Seattle are poly). Those are the open-minded folks I'm probably most similar to (other than the poly thing, which I'm starting to feel is a deficiency somehow). Then there's people who're more organized/rule-oriented, so I'm sure we'd have more interpersonal conflict, but those are the types who're single and non-poly in this small sample size. I mean, um??

I guess it makes me wonder if a lot of times the 'cool' guys I read about (y'know, romantic leads in fiction) are really unrealistic not for various obvious reasons but because they're somehow uniting qualities from opposite ends of an interpersonal preference spectrum. That is, stuff like sudden emotional change or flexibility with 'heroic' qualities (judgment/justice). I'm sure there are open-minded free-spirited types who're not poly, of course (I'm one of them? I thought?) but still. Maybe it's the romanticism that makes me weird? A lot of people's (in my broad group of peers) idea of romance is actually... I guess, different? Like, this is one of those times I think I'm oddly traditionalist about romance (though not most other things). My rl friend A. backs this up (she too thinks I'm a traditionalist). But when I read profiles of folks who're more traditionalist across the board-- even geeks, I mean-- it's like I find them cool but I know we'd have conflict. These are also the folks who'd have more problems with me being lazy, overweight and indecisive.

Further, my idea of 'traditionalist' isn't most people's. It's not like I want a traditional marriage where I stay home with the babies, submit to the patriarchy and bake cakes or whatever. (...And even those people are poly on OKC, it seems, but I think that's skewed by necessity, 'cause the broad majority of those housewives probably aren't on OKC anyway). Anyway, the idea that what's 'romantic' is shifting among the geeky/progressive 20-somethings/youth is interesting to me. Maybe 'freedom' was always Bohemian-- probably. I was never too into romantic freedom. To some degree, I mean, this is just my anti-social personality (in that I couldn't really use something like that unless I went way out of my way trying). It's hard for me to tell if I'd be poly if I wasn't so shy/super-introverted, but I don't think so. I guess I don't feel the need to have more than one sexualized relationship? I don't know! Being naturally monogamous but affectionate and friendly is... weird? I mean, I do think I'm friendly, but since I so rarely show it, maybe I'm not (friendliness is inherently understood in its expression, right)? Maybe I'm really just like those, y'know, stereotypical sulky teenage boys I read about as romantic leads in vampire romance novels. That'd be hilarious.

I definitely think my natural idea of romance is outdated, in that really-uncool 80s-movie sort of way. Not that I mind or anything, I mean, I probably prefer that. If everyone was like, 'yeah! Princess Bride is my role-model!' it'd be freaky (and probably unhealthy for the birthrate). The thing about it that bugs me a bit is that I've always wanted to feel part of some sort of group (even if we never interacted, haha), so I consider 20-something geeks 'my tribe', my people, etc. It's jarring to realize something as central to me as my relationship to love & romantic ideals is non-typical for geeks, so far as I can tell from my tiny sample. Actually, maybe those are just the ones who're not too antisocial and/or asocial to have OKC profiles, and those are the ones I'm like. Like, the ones who only hang out on physics or programming or fandom forums, arguing about stuff that isn't themselves. That's probably true.

I mean, it's not like I'm against polyamory, even for myself (under 100% perfect circumstances), but rather it's just a challenge for me, like how I can also imagine being a rockstar (why not? there's a part of me that'd like that). But-- and this is something I keep thinking about-- I define what I want based on stories I tell myself, right. Like, this is partly why I can't quite imagine myself in a relationship with a girl. It's like the wrong archetype in my head? haha. So yeah, weird. Like how I write slash in part to break through the walls, right? Because I want equality, openness, freedom, yeah (in fiction, for sure). Applying this to yourself is hard. Giving yourself permission to just do what you want is hard for me-- not because I'm afraid of what I want, or afraid of sex or whatever-- but just because I don't know how to not be a romantic idealist. In slash, even though they're transgressing, they're (usually) still 'safe', totally monogamous, totally in-love-4evar-omg. So here they are, discarding social expectations all over the place and doing Their Own Thing, Dammit (especially H/D, right?), and yet it's this totally safe traditional commitment against all odds. I mean, Ginny? To hell with Ginny, he never wanted her anyway.

So yeah, back to me & girls, I can't imagine the right kind of relationship with a girl, not because we wouldn't be long-term compatible, but because it wouldn't engage my ego-imagination, wouldn't transform how I see myself. I'd just be me, in a relationship. I wouldn't remake myself (I don't think) with a girl. And isn't this great? This is a big part of the attraction, even, I can see that. But I've always been obsessed with this idea of finding yourself in losing yourself. Being with someone who basically completes you by being Not-You. Maybe I'm wrong-- I mean, I'm not saying this is how same sex relationships have to work at all-- after all, it's not how I wrote H/D (quite the opposite). I just mean in my imagination: I don't even mean in reality. I just mean, this is how I imagine it, so my ideal doesn't extend there. In my ideal, I'm with this guy who's basically (probably) this next-to-impossible combination of traits and attitudes that completes and challenges me, and the maleness is a big part of that challenge. So I mean, in some ways even non-macho geeky boys (though I love them!) aren't It. Aren't far enough into the Animus range.

I think if I wrote this on a forum like ask.metafilter, I'd get told to find therapy and overcome it. But, well, even though it's probably holding me back, I'm too fond of my inner archetypes to want to 'overcome' them; besides, it doesn't actually make me reject people who ask me out. While I admire people who actually live their lives instead of telling stories about them, I'm not like, immediately ready to do that myself. My whole life, pretty much, I've told myself fairy-tales about how my life should be, how I wanted it. I've gotten a lot better at accepting reality, but it'd be too much to just discard that part of me altogether. I want to either find what I want or be surprised by finding what I didn't know I wanted, but either way I don't want to 'settle' for what I know isn't enough. Even if I think those cute geeks are, well, super-cute. Sometimes I'm like, 'maybe it's better to find a motorcycle racer who secretly reads Dostoyevsky with a flashlight'. But see, I'm telling stories again.
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
Account name:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.


Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.


floorpigeon: (Default)
the one who stumbled

January 2015

181920 21222324

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 03:09 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios