Two Cents With Interest
Posted by Ace on April 2nd, 2011 filed in letters from AceA long time ago, Nickykaa made the observation in his on-line journal that he and Argus had been discussing relationships, and had both independently come to the conclusion that they weren’t much interested in dating women who were significantly younger than themselves. I made the rather pithy comment in response that I had a lot to say about that, but that every time I sat down to write about it, I burst into flames. (I believe I also gave him permission to shovel my ashes into River’s sandbox, so someone got some use out of them.)
I go back to that comment in my head from time to time, for reasons I cant fully explain, and actually what I have to say about it, such a long time later, is this: you can make any relationship work, regardless of the relative age of the participants (or anything else) as long as your goals are the same. And if your goals are somewhat divergent, then you can still make it work, as long as you have other things in common, like similar past experiences, or a shared cultural background. It isn’t that dating someone much younger than you are is inherently bad; it’s just that it makes either of those prerequisites for success much less likely to be true.
“If that was worth a journey of a hundred and ten days to hear, you had best listen to it.”
April 3rd, 2011 at 11:39 am
Of course, the irony is that since that comment, Nicky and Argus did.
I completely agree with your explanation, and add that even if you have nothing in common, you can also still make it work provided that both parties are open-minded to the past experiences and cultural background that each brings to the relationship. This requires a lot more work, though, and if both are willing to put in the work, the results will be tremendous.
It makes for a much easier relationship, though, if there is a common interest somewhere. So then it often works out that being of the same age, or same cultural background, etc. makes communication easier. But like you said, it is not necessarily a requirement.
As far as common goals go, I am seeing longtime couples break up because their goals are no longer the same. I can understand the reasoning, but it makes me sad, nonetheless, to see folks who once loved (or still love) each other split. I’d like to think that deep abiding love and support would keep them together even when their goals no longer are, but perhaps that’s the romantic in me who wishes this.
April 3rd, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Both Ace and Yoko are using this language (paraphrased), “Making the relationship work.” What does that mean exactly? I am both unsure of what it means that a relationship “works” as well as what it means to “make” it do that.
It just strikes me as rather instrumental language.
On the other hand, Woody Allen offers this (annoyingly tautological, to me) statement: “The heart wants what it wants.”
April 3rd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Neuro, I use “work” in this sense to mean to have the relationship continue and be useful to the people in that relationship. To “make” the relationship work, I mean for those people to be aware of what fuels the relationship and to continue to be in that relationship.
April 3rd, 2011 at 10:57 pm
I think Yoko’s definitions are largely what I would have said had I responded first. I might have qualified “work” by saying “and be pleasant and satisfying to the people in that relationship”, rather than saying “be useful to”. And I might have thrown in something about the relationship generating more net positive value for the participants than negative value. No relationship is without both its plusses and its drawbacks.
April 4th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Thanks to you both for the elaboration.
I’m not sure I agree with you. If I sub in your definitions for work, one gets:
“You can make any relationship continue and be useful/pleasant/satisfying (u/p/s) to the people in that relationship, regardless of the relative age of the participants (or anything else) as long as your goals are the same. And if your goals are somewhat divergent, then you can still make it u/p/s, as long as you have other things in common, like similar past experiences, or a shared cultural background, or that both parties are open-minded to the past experiences and cultural background that each brings to the relationship.”
Is it just that you are assuming that attraction, chemistry, spark, respect, “getting” each other, personal admiration, trust–in a word, love–is there from the beginning to the end, too? Because my point here is that the way all this is written it almost reads like an arranged marriage. I submit that one cannot make any romantic relationship work, despite having common goals, background, and open-mindedness to one’s cultural differences. I’m sure there are many women who I could tick off these items with CHECK, CHECK, CHECK and although I might be great friends with them or collaborate with them harmoniously I would never want to be with them romantically in 1,000 years.
I could have all the common goals and life background and cultural openness in the world and if she laughs the wrong way, well, game over.
My point is, I feel that although what you are both saying is certainly of value and ought to be taken seriously within a relationship, the dominant factor in a relationship is the much harder to quantify “certain something”. It’s so dominant, in fact, that it almost makes a mockery of all our machinations toward making a relationship work.
(And the “dominant certain something” is itself at the whim of biology, timing, imprinting, belief, etc. E.g, one study showed that fertile women prefer more masculine looking men when they are ovulating.)
April 4th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
“Is it just that you are assuming that attraction, chemistry, spark, respect, “getting†each other, personal admiration, trust–in a word, love–is there from the beginning to the end, too?”
These are all different things. The attraction, chemistry, and spark fade in time. What takes its place is the admiration, trust, and “getting each other”– but these qualities don’t happen right away, but develop over time. What helps them to develop is to be aware of where someone is coming from, which helps when there some commonality or “work” towards understanding.
“I could have all the common goals and life background and cultural openness in the world and if she laughs the wrong way, well, game over.”
I think we’re coming from different angles here. I think to *start* a relationship, that “certain something” (spark, chemistry, etc.) definitely is what brings people together. But for me, at least, that “certain something” doesn’t keep the relationship going for more than a few months. What does is the understanding, the common direction, what have you. The more you get to know a person, the more you get to know his/her quirks, and maybe those outweigh that spark. But also, the more you get to know a person, the more you come to realize that there are more aspects to being with him/her that “net positive” and thus makes it worth staying instead of ditching because of something like the wrong laugh.
April 5th, 2011 at 10:40 am
[…] the comments on Two Cents With Interest, Neuro writes: I’m not sure I agree with you. If I sub in your definitions for work, one […]