Thoughts on Romantic Relationships from a "Humorous Chinese"
I have not written a long essay for a long time, partly because I am lazy, and partly because every essay I write gets blocked, which is honestly irritating. Some friends suggested that I post outside the firewall, but after thinking about it, I decided against it. First, I have not fully decided my future direction; perhaps I will still need to make a living in China, so staying alive matters. Second, my purpose in writing is: 1. to share experiences and lessons while showing off a little (or to show off a little while sharing experiences and lessons); 2. to find like-minded friends; 3. to help people I know escape confusion as much as possible. I am not considering monetization (I do not have that level anyway), I am not seeking to promote social progress (I had similar ideas in ninth and tenth grade), and I have even less intention of subverting **** (I have never thought that way from childhood to now). In that sense, public-domain traffic does not mean much to me.
Precisely because I have not written for so long, my already limited writing ability has kept sliding downhill. This essay inherits the long and stinky style of "A Chronicle of Qinglan: Weng Xiangxiang," continues the style of "In the Post-Pandemic Era, Where Should We Go?" by using a large number of meaningless and low-level definitions to make the article seem more sophisticated, and inserts points likely to cause controversy between a whole text of "correct nonsense" and a great deal of "armor-stacking," thereby raising the threshold for reading. It is truly despicable. The level is so low that I am ashamed!
Still, I also believe this article is not entirely worthless. As mentioned in the main text, before writing it I had already discussed several major propositions about "romance" with friends, yet I still found it hard to give an explanation that satisfied myself.
While writing and sorting through my thoughts, I summarized six characteristics of a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" and built a framework for my view of romance. When I then reexamined the opening questions, I found that I could answer them in a self-consistent way, which rather surprised me. It may not be correct, but it gave me the courage to respond directly to, and try to persuade, parents and relatives if they raise such questions in the future. That counts as a gain.
Before the main text begins, let me stack a few big pieces of armor first. During the writing, I will keep stacking smaller pieces of armor, prepared for them to be dug up and criticized in the future.
1. The wording in this article is made as gender-neutral as possible, out of respect for gender equality. For example, I use "have relations," "engage in sexual behavior," and "make love" instead of words like "sleep with" or "take," which in a traditional patriarchal context clearly imply male dominance in descriptions of sexual behavior. For third-person singular, I use "he/she" or "the other party." When the Chinese character "he" appears as part of words meaning "other," such as "others," it is retained only because of Chinese usage habits and has no other meaning. This is hereby noted.
2. This article describes only "my own view of romantic relationships," not "the correct view of romantic relationships." Its purpose is not to change other people's "wrong" ideas and make them learn my so-called "correct" ideas. It is only for sharing and exchange, a brick thrown out in the hope of attracting jade.
3. For reasons of length and topic, the scope of this article is "stable, mainstream romantic relationships." It does not deny the value of "unstable" or "non-mainstream" romantic relationships.
4. When this article places binary relationships such as "friends with benefits," "homosexual relationships," "teacher-student relationships," and "early romance" opposite "stable, mainstream romantic relationships," it is only describing the social conditions I see, which may not be objective. Subjectively, I also hold no malice toward people in "non-mainstream" or "unstable" relationships. If you feel uncomfortable while reading, I am very sorry.
5. This article uses traditional-style quotation marks, " ", only to highlight key parts of the text, and may not follow the usage norms and implications of simplified Chinese quotation marks. There is no denigration of simplified Chinese (the whole article is written in simplified Chinese, which proves this), nor am I deliberately using quotation marks identical to Japanese. This is a workaround because QQ Notes does not support .md format. If readers think it affects the appearance, they can ask GPT to write a program to replace them with one click.
6. I am currently (I was not before, and may not always be in the future) a very pure egoist, with weak empathy. Readers should be able to feel this during the essay; for example, although this article revolves around "romantic relationships," the argument consistently avoids the word "love." If readers feel uncomfortable with the frequent appearance of words such as "interests," "costs," "risks," and emotional "value," and believe that between people there are things such as "feelings" that cannot be measured by interests, then you are not yet a pure egoist, and that is a good thing. I only ask that you criticize gently. Thank you here.
I have grown used to being alone. Still, several questions often trouble me:
What changes from ambiguity to a romantic relationship? Why do most high-school romantic relationships not last? Why can a small number of high-school couples grow old together and walk from school into marriage? When people usually say they "want to date," what exactly do they want? Why do more and more young people today "not want to date"? We often hear advice such as "do not become love-brained," but what exactly does "love-brained" mean?
(Sorry, that introduction was abrupt.)
Years of experience and conversations with friends have brought me intermittent thoughts. Another Qixi Festival has arrived, so I have sorted them out and summarized them for sharing. These are only my humble opinions. If anything is inappropriate, I ask for your understanding.
A "romantic relationship," as a binary relationship unique to humans (and some higher organisms), has its special qualities. Though complex, it can be summarized and described through its characteristics.
A "romantic relationship" can be regarded as a kind of contract. Overall, it lies between an "ambiguous relationship" and a "marital relationship." As an upgrade and qualitative change from an "ambiguous relationship," it adds many extra characteristics, which will be listed one by one below.
It needs to be pointed out that a "romantic relationship" does not have the legal effects possessed by a "marital relationship." Therefore, the maintenance of the contract mainly depends on personal will and moral self-consciousness.
A "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" has the following characteristics:
1. Mutuality.
The formation of a contract requires recognition by both contracting parties. Specifically, it can be divided into four parts:
Part one: I want to establish a "romantic relationship" with you.
Part two: You want to establish a "romantic relationship" with me.
Part three: You know that I want to establish a "romantic relationship" with you.
Part four: I know that you want to establish a "romantic relationship" with me.
When all four parts are satisfied at the same time, the "formation of the contract" can occur: the act and process by which both parties formally confirm the "romantic relationship."
Take confession as an example. What kind of confession has a high chance of success?
First, "I want to establish a romantic relationship with you" means that, in an "ambiguous relationship," I sense a romantic atmosphere and develop the desire to add to our "ambiguous relationship" the other characteristics of a "romantic relationship" besides "mutuality" (these characteristics will be introduced below).
Second, I guess that you also want to establish a "romantic relationship" with me. So I make the third part true, letting you know that I want to establish a "romantic relationship" with you.
Finally, I request your response. That is, I want you to make some action or expression so that I know you want to establish a "romantic relationship" with me.
When all four parts are true, the contracting parties possess the "mutuality of a romantic relationship." Only on this basis will the "formation of the contract" have a high success rate. Sometimes, the contract is formed automatically when the "mutuality of a romantic relationship" appears, depending on the personalities of the contracting parties.
More specifically, here are a few successful confession scenarios:
Scenario one:
A: I like you. (Parts one and three are true.)
B: I like you too. (Parts two and four are true.)
A: Let's be together. (Formation of the contract.)
B: Okay. (Formation of the contract.)
Scenario two:
A: Will you be my boyfriend/girlfriend? (Parts one and three are true.)
B: Okay. (Parts two and four are true, and the contract is formed automatically.)
And a failed confession scenario:
A: I like you. (Parts one and three are true.)
B: You are a good person, but... (Part two is most likely false, and part four is false.)
In summary, assuming I am the one confessing, parts one and three are automatically true. Once parts one, two, and three are all true, in most cases part four can also be true (knowing three lets one infer one). Therefore, whether a confession succeeds depends on my grasp of whether the second part is true, namely whether the guess in "I guess you also want to establish a romantic relationship with me" is correct.
This confirms the famous line online: "A confession is the triumphal song of victory, not the charge of attack." Charging is risky; a triumphal song celebrates success. The meaning behind this line is that you should not confess without considerable confidence (unless your purpose is not the formation of the contract).
The dissolution of the contract originates in the "loss of mutuality."
After the contracting parties have spent some time together, various reasons may cause some parts of the four-part "mutuality" to turn into their opposites. For example, "I want to establish a romantic relationship with you" may become "I want to end the romantic relationship with you," or "I know that you want to establish a romantic relationship with me" may become "I know that you want to end the romantic relationship with me." If any one of the four parts turns into its opposite, the contract may be dissolved. The more items that turn opposite, and the greater the degree, the greater the possibility of dissolution.
Take a few specific cases:
1. For "I want to end the romantic relationship with you," "the result of careful consideration" is stronger than "an emotional temporary impulse," and "objective, unchangeable reasons" are stronger than "reasons that can be overcome through negotiation and effort."
2. For "you want to end the romantic relationship with me," "hearing it from your mouth" is stronger than "hearing it from others," and "hearing it from someone" is stronger than "my own guess."
3. When both "I want to end the romantic relationship with you" and "you want to end the romantic relationship with me" exist at the same time, the possibility of dissolving the contract is greater than when only one side exists. The former can dissolve the contract smoothly; the latter may involve clinging, pestering, or a change of heart.
The dissolution of the contract generally requires recognition by both parties, but unilateral breach also exists (deleting friends, not answering calls, disappearing from the world). This is because a "romantic relationship" has no legal effect and depends only on personal will and moral self-consciousness.
In summary, "mutuality" is one of the important characteristics of a "romantic relationship."
However, is the word "mutuality" alone enough to show what is special about a "romantic relationship"? Or, can it comprehensively and accurately describe a "romantic relationship" without making you think of other binary relationships? No. We can easily give examples of other common binary relationships with "mutuality."
First, friends. I want to make friends with you, you want to make friends with me, you know I want to make friends with you, and I know you want to make friends with me. Once "mutuality" is present, the "formation of the contract" can occur (such as exchanging contact information). Example:
A: Let's add each other on WeChat. (Parts one and three are true.)
B: Okay. (Parts two and four are true, and the contract is formed automatically.)
Second, family. For example, a "stable and harmonious parent-child relationship." Because of biological principles, the parent-child relationship is formed by blood, so there is a possibility that mutuality is absent. But such a "parent-child relationship" is "unstable" and may produce frequent conflicts. Once the opposition of one or more of the four parts reaches a certain limit, the relationship may even face dissolution. Example:
Parent: Get out. I do not have a child like you. (Opposition of parts one and three.)
Child: Did you ask my opinion when you gave birth to me? (Opposition of parts two and four.)
By the way, apart from some "parent-child relationships," are there other binary relationships that may lack "mutuality"? Yes, such as "blood relation," "classmate," "teacher-student," and "colleague," which are binary relationships forcibly formed by social rules or scientific laws. In relationships where "mutuality" cannot be determined at the time of formation, once it is confirmed absent, they become similar to a "romantic relationship lacking mutuality," tottering on the brink.
Third, friends with benefits. It is generally believed that "friends-with-benefits relationships" and "romantic relationships" have many differences, but they both possess "mutuality." I want to be friends with benefits with you, you want to be friends with benefits with me, both parties know this, and the "friends-with-benefits relationship" can be formed.
In addition, the "partner socializing" popular among college students, such as "xx partner," also has the characteristic of "mutuality." Compared with "(good) friends," a "partner" is relatively superficial, because although both have "mutuality," a "partner" lacks other characteristics possessed by "(good) friends," such as "deep mutual understanding" and "a sense of responsibility" (these two terms will be explained later).
Thus, we need other characteristics of romance to determine the uniqueness of romantic relationships and distinguish them from other binary relationships.
2. Possessiveness.
When the contracting parties confirm a romantic relationship, it means that each side sacrifices part of their freedom in exchange for possession of various forms of the other party's freedom. For example:
First, monitoring/possessing free time.
In a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship," most people hope the other party will actively maintain and develop the relationship. In specific behavior, this can take many forms, such as "replying to messages promptly," having more time to accompany oneself, reporting one's schedule, and so on. The other party sacrifices some free time to promote the couple relationship. In exchange, one is also willing to sacrifice part of one's own free time.
Second, possession of the beloved object (free will).
After the contracting parties establish a romantic relationship, a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" requires that the other party not have another object of love. This is part of "possessiveness." "Emotional cheating" breaks this possessiveness.
Third, possession of sex and the body (free behavior).
Humans, as animals, secrete hormones, and when facing the opposite sex (for most people) or the same sex (for a minority), may develop sexual impulses and want to engage in sexual behavior with the other party.
After the contracting parties establish a romantic relationship, a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" requires that the other party not have another object of sexual behavior. This is part of "possessiveness." "Physical cheating" breaks this possessiveness.
Once any characteristic of a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" is broken, the romantic relationship becomes "unstable" or "non-mainstream."
As mentioned earlier, a "friends-with-benefits relationship" has mutuality. In actual situations, some friends-with-benefits relationships also exert a certain possessiveness over the other party's free time, sex, and body, such as a regular friends-with-benefits arrangement (a long-term friends-with-benefits relationship maintained with a fixed partner). Of course, in some cases (long-term harmonious sexual behavior, and ideological exchange before and after sex), a regular friends-with-benefits relationship may indeed develop into a romantic relationship. This shows from the side that "mutuality" and "possessiveness" can describe stable, mainstream romantic relationships fairly well, but they are still insufficient to determine uniqueness: a binary relationship with these two characteristics can also refer to a pure interest relationship distinct from a "romantic relationship" (for example, a purely friends-with-benefits relationship that only seeks pleasure and refuses deeper development).
Therefore, other characteristics of a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" ("ethicality," "deep mutual understanding," "a sense of responsibility," and "sustainable development") are introduced as supplements.
3. Ethicality.
A "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" conforms to "public order and good customs," "social norms," and "legal requirements" (although I think the first two terms are disgusting in some circumstances, as social animals, humans more or less need to consider these when building social relationships).
Take Chinese society as an example:
"Homosexuality": same-sex romance is not illegal in mainland China, but same-sex marriage is not legal, so there is room for progress.
"Romantic relationships with a very large age gap": such as Yang Zhenning and Weng Fan, which suffered much questioning and many rumors. Fortunately, Yang himself was strong enough.
"Teacher-student romance": unequal power and possible infringement of other students' interests.
"Incestuous romance": incest.
"Romantic relationships between underage contracting parties": so-called early romance.
The above romantic relationships are currently relatively difficult for mainstream Chinese society to accept.
These kinds of public order and good customs, social norms, and legal requirements constitute the ethicality that a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" needs to possess. Otherwise, its development will be disturbed by a great deal of resistance, making it unstable.
Some facts can illustrate this:
First, Chinese society has the following phenomenon: in order to satisfy "public order and good customs," "social norms," and "legal requirements," some homosexual people have no choice but to establish romantic relationships with the opposite sex and then enter marriage. This is commonly called "gay marriage fraud." My value judgment on this is that "sexual orientation is personal freedom" should become a consensus in modern society. This phenomenon reflects the non-modernity of social norms and law themselves (though things have improved somewhat in recent years). I point out the existence of this phenomenon to show that individuals, in order to establish a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship," will more or less consider ethicality.
Second, the "purely friends-with-benefits relationship that only seeks pleasure and refuses deeper development" mentioned above cannot be placed on the table and is clearly different from a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship." One reason is that it conflicts with Chinese social ethics (of course, it generally also lacks the other characteristics discussed below).
Third, several films directed by Ang Lee, such as The Wedding Banquet (same-sex love), Brokeback Mountain (same-sex love), and Lust, Caution (a female agent and a collaborator), caused huge reactions and discussions at home and abroad precisely because the "not very mainstream" romantic relationships described in the films challenged traditional ethics (especially the first two).
This characteristic can also distinguish romantic relationships from "(good) friendships." In contemporary Chinese society, compared with "romantic relationships," ethical restrictions on "friendships" are relatively few. You can establish a "friendship" with your parents/children while maintaining a "parent-child relationship." Similarly, making friends with relatives, teachers, leaders, and forming "friendships across age gaps" are all subject to fewer ethical restrictions.
By the way, according to the shallow historical knowledge remaining in my engineering-male brain, ancient Chinese society placed more ethical restrictions on "friendships." "Let the ruler be ruler, the minister minister, the father father, and the son son"; similar cardinal relations and rites strictly divided the scope in which "friendships" could be formed, restricting individual freedom and intensifying class solidification.
4. Deep mutual understanding.
In a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship," the contracting parties should understand each other deeply and maintain continuous communication.
There is a question: should one understand first and then date, or date first and then understand?
My personal value judgment: if you do not treat romance as a game, if the reason for dating is not merely "strong possessiveness," and if the purpose of dating is not merely "sexual behavior," then if you hope the "romantic relationship" can be long-lasting and stable, you should understand the other party clearly before confirming the "romantic relationship."
Another view is: "Romance is a beautiful experience. It broadens horizons, inspires thinking, improves ability; the more the better. Naturally one should date first and then understand deeply; if it is unsuitable, just break up," or, "Although I move seamlessly from one relationship to the next, it is not out of possessiveness or sexual instinct, but mutual appreciation of souls."
I do not criticize this view morally, because I myself do not have much morality. Moreover, compared with many truly morally bankrupt social incidents, this view itself cannot be called moral decay.
I criticize this view from its own logic: if establishing a "romantic relationship" is not out of sex or possessiveness, yet one rashly establishes it without "deep understanding," the potential risks and costs are extremely high. This relationship may not only fail to let you "broaden horizons, inspire thinking, and improve ability," but may also, because you did not carefully examine the other party's character and personality before forming it, occupy a great deal of your energy, time, and even property. "Date first, understand later, and break up if unsuitable" wastes time and may lead to negative emotions outweighing positive ones, objectively affecting your opportunities to "broaden horizons, inspire thinking, and improve ability." In addition, if you have not even understood what kind of person the other party is and what thoughts they have, how can there be "appreciation of the soul"? What you appreciate is only the other party in your impression, and without deep understanding, this impression is likely to be very different from the other party's "true image."
According to the logic of that view, establishing and maintaining a "(good) friendship" with the other party can also "broaden horizons, inspire thinking, improve ability, and mutually appreciate souls," while lowering potential risks compared with a "romantic relationship." In addition, after "deep mutual understanding" in a "friendship," if both parties think it is suitable, the relationship can transition into "ambiguity" and then a "romantic relationship." But a "romantic relationship formed without deep understanding," once dissolved because of personality issues, may not even be able to maintain the "friendship," directly making "appreciation of the soul" impossible. Is that not a major loss?
First deepen understanding in a "friendship" or "ambiguous relationship," then establish a "romantic relationship": this has every benefit and no harm. Yet supporters of the other view choose to skip the "deep understanding" stage and directly establish a "romantic relationship." I can think of several possibilities:
First, they have not thought deeply.
Second, they are concealing something, and it really is out of sex and possessiveness.
Third, other possibilities (multi-dimensional offense and defense).
Returning to the characteristic of "deep mutual understanding" itself.
Note that many "(good) friendships" also have this characteristic. Unlike a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship," in most cases the previous stage of a "friendship" is "strangers," which means it is hard to understand each other deeply before forming the "friendship." But the previous stage of a romantic relationship is a "(good) friendship/ambiguous relationship." In this relationship, finding opportunities to understand the other party, considering whether the two sides are suitable, and observing whether the other party's possessiveness is within one's own tolerance are all important to the formation and maintenance of a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship."
Of course, situations may occur where someone is a completely different person in romance than in ambiguity. During ambiguity, the other party may intentionally cover up their flaws and possessiveness, only exposing them after the romantic relationship is confirmed, leaving you physically and mentally exhausted. But "potential negative emotional risk" is itself one of the risks of forming a romantic relationship, and will also be mentioned below under "the disadvantages of romance."
To obtain the value brought by a "romantic relationship," one must bear certain risks. However, we can reduce risk by improving our observational ability, thinking rationally instead of judging emotionally, and learning from experience.
In fact, any binary relationship is like this. But the many possible disadvantages of a "romantic relationship" mentioned below remind us that, when establishing a romantic relationship, we should be more cautious than when "making friends" or "finding a partner."
5. A sense of responsibility.
"A sense of responsibility" and "possessiveness" lead to the same behavior in some cases. The difference is that "possessiveness" emphasizes passivity, while "a sense of responsibility" (in this article) emphasizes initiative.
(The difference between "I think I should..." and "I have to....")
For example, when the other party falls into an emotional low point, "possessiveness" makes you have to provide emotional support, while "a sense of responsibility" makes you actively provide emotional guidance.
In romantic relationships, these two characteristics often exist at the same time and lead to the same behavior: giving comfort when the other party is sad, appearing promptly when needed, and compromising when opinions differ. Taking the other party's sadness as an example, there is both a necessity to provide emotional guidance and an active desire to provide it.
Here we can distinguish "good friends" from "lovers." "Good friends" emphasize that both parties have a strong "sense of responsibility" toward each other, while "lovers" have "a sense of responsibility" plus "possessiveness," imposing requirements on the contracting parties from both active and passive sides. Several facts can illustrate this:
First, there can be multiple objects of a "stable, mainstream (good) friendship" (a friend cannot require you to be friends with only him/her), while there can be only one object of a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" (possession of the beloved object).
Second, for friends, I do not need to explain my "not replying to messages," do not need to "report" my schedule, have no obligation to serve as the other party's "trash can for negative emotions" (of course, I may actively provide emotional guidance out of a "sense of responsibility"), and can freely refuse the other party's invitations.
For lovers, if "possessiveness" is absent, if one does not explain "not replying to messages," does not promptly comfort the other party's negative emotions, and freely refuses the other party's invitations (these are only examples; specific requirements are agreed upon by the contracting parties themselves), then one can say you are good friends or friends with benefits who share common topics, but it is hard to say you are in a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship," because it has lost the most unique characteristic that distinguishes a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" from other relationships.
Of course, everyone has the freedom to pursue an "unstable" or "non-mainstream" romantic relationship. In modern society, diverse forms of romance, such as Homosexuality, Open Relationship, Friends with Benefits, and si ai (interestingly, I could not find its English term; it seems to originate in Chinese-speaking communities), are also part of cultural diversity.
From my observation alone, more and more romantic relationships around me are becoming fast-paced, especially among university (study-abroad) students (statistics from people around me, please criticize gently). During the writing process I often wondered whether what I see as mainstream has seriously deviated from the true mainstream of society.
This is a major weak point of the article, but I insist on keeping it. Because around me there are also even more couples who date seriously and move toward the future hand in hand. My personal value judgment is that such relationships, in a fast-food society full of material desires and temptation, face more and more challenges, seem especially precious, and are worth promoting.
By the way, in a "friendship," if the other party uses hints and explicit statements to add "possessiveness" to your relationship, making you feel that it is "hard to refuse" and bringing you great pressure and trouble, then you should seriously examine whether this "possessiveness" is reasonable.
Example 1:
(At a dinner party) The other party: Drink! If you do not drink this glass, you are not giving me face! (Possession of free will.)
Example 2:
The other party: Am I your "best" friend? (Applying possession through implication, because "best" means unique, and the other party hopes to possess that position.)
My personal value judgment is that I would absolutely not give an affirmative answer to this kind of "idiotic question" (the question itself is idiotic, not necessarily the person asking it). Of course, someone who can ask this kind of question objectively would not be my best friend either.
If you give a clear affirmative answer, the other party may use it to further possess you in the future. Example:
The other party: Aren't we best friends? You are not even willing to help me with such a small thing / why did you not comfort me when I was sad / although I did something wrong, you must forgive me / ...
Someone may ask: does a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" also contain this kind of bottomless, mad possessiveness?
This returns to point 4, "deep understanding." If you pursue a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship," before establishing it you must satisfy "deep mutual understanding." The strength of the other party's possessiveness is not the key; the key is that you must estimate it and judge whether it lies within your tolerance range.
For some people, he/she may precisely need the other party to have extremely strong possessiveness in order to obtain a sense of personal existence from it, or to exchange for interests he/she needs more. Just as some people are naturally suited to civil-service or public-institution exams and can tolerate drinking-table culture in order to achieve business signing, power-money transactions, position promotion, and other interests that interest him/her more.
6. Sustainable development.
A "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" requires both parties to have reasonable plans for a shared future, continuous growth in their respective abilities, and preferably stable income on both sides, rather than using parents' income (no explanation) or one party's income (unequal contribution) as the material foundation for the development of the romantic relationship. Example:
A and B confirmed their "romantic relationship" in high school. After the gaokao, A was admitted to an ideal Project 985 university, while B performed abnormally and chose to repeat the year. A year later, B still did not perform well and entered a junior college. B cried to A that they could not see their future clearly, and A proposed ending the "romantic relationship." Though "cold-blooded," it is "understandable." A romantic relationship with no plan and a large ability gap between the contracting parties lacks a foundation for sustained development.
There is a famous line online: "The first sword after landing ashore is to cut down the beloved." It means that after someone taking exams (civil-service or public-institution exams) successfully "lands ashore," the first thing they do is break up with their partner. Because the futures of both parties no longer overlap, the romantic relationship loses its "sustainable development."
My personal value judgment: this line is a bit extreme. "Getting a public-sector post" is not some great achievement that can forever separate people from each other. But although the words are rough, the reasoning is not. Only by working hard to improve oneself and progressing together with one's lover, rather than one party giving up and placing hopes on the other party's subjective will and moral self-consciousness, can a romantic relationship last.
A "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" may have other characteristics. For example, the original draft also mentioned "dependence," emphasizing guidance and dependence in romantic relationships, but I felt it could easily trigger readers' subconscious stereotype of "strong man, weak woman," so I deleted it. As for other characteristics, my energy and thinking ability are limited, so I will not expand further. Additions are welcome.
Below is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a "romantic relationship." As an extension of the above, many points have already been mentioned repeatedly, so this section will not be emphasized.
Advantages:
1. Provides emotional value and relieves pressure.
2. Provides satisfaction of possessiveness.
3. Promotes growth on both sides.
Disadvantages:
1. Potential negative emotional risk.
2. Being possessed in various forms, restricting freedom.
3. High costs (compared with making friends).
Reexamining the opening questions, I now seem able to answer them.
First, what changes from ambiguity to a (stable, mainstream) romantic relationship?
An "ambiguous relationship" is relatively special. In the process of ambiguity, many words cannot be stated clearly. It may possess the first two parts of the mutuality of a "romantic relationship," but not so much the latter two. Therefore, some people describe an ambiguous relationship as "more than friends, not yet lovers."
At the beginning, an "ambiguous relationship" does not possess "possessiveness." As the "ambiguous relationship" develops and heats up, one side or both sides become sensitive, pay attention to their performance in front of the other party, secretly observe the other party's attitude toward them, and eventually one side proposes "possessiveness." In an "ambiguous relationship," proposing "possessiveness" seems bold and overstepping, but if the other party is not disgusted and even proposes another demand for "possession," it suggests that the other party is also considering upgrading the relationship. For example:
A: From now on, I will bring you breakfast for every 8 a.m. class, so you can sleep a little later. (Possession of free behavior.)
B: (blushing, thinking) Okay, thank you.
(Agreeing to possession.)
B: By the way, the PE test is coming up. Should we set a time every afternoon to exercise together?
(Proposing another possession.)
A: (blushing, thinking) Yes, yes. I was just worrying that I would not pass the PE test. (Agreeing to possession.)
Because of its hiddenness, the "ambiguous relationship" has weaker "ethicality."
In an "ambiguous relationship," one can begin to conduct "deep mutual understanding." After confirming understanding, if both parties feel suitable, they can consider upgrading it into a "romantic relationship."
An "ambiguous relationship" has a budding "sense of responsibility." For some individuals with "three-minute enthusiasm," this "sense of responsibility" may even be stronger than in a "romantic relationship."
Talking about a "shared future" in an "ambiguous relationship" seems bold and overstepping, but one can indirectly display one's "sustainable development," such as by discussing life plans.
Second, why do most "high-school romantic relationships" not last?
(Excerpted from the next answer.) For "high-school romance," the long-term maintenance of the six major characteristics of a "romantic relationship" requires a destined he/she to make it possible. In ordinary high schools in mainland China, the probability of achieving this is very small (fixed classes, repetitive academic activities, enormous pressure for further education, and very little socializing).
Therefore, most "high-school romantic relationships" do not last.
Third, why can a small number of high-school students grow old together and walk from school into marriage?
Good luck. Through "deep mutual understanding," they know the other party has a strong "sense of responsibility" and are certain the other party will not defect, ensuring the long-term maintenance of "mutuality" and "possessiveness." High-school romance lacks "ethicality" somewhat, but when it meets open-minded families and schools with open management, resistance is small, and after entering university it possesses "ethicality." Although it lacked "sustainable development" at the time of contracting, if the two sides have similar development paths or shared expectations for the future, they gradually establish "sustainable development" as they grow.
For "high-school romance," the long-term maintenance of the six major characteristics of a "romantic relationship" requires a destined he/she to make it possible. In ordinary high schools in mainland China, the probability of achieving this is very small (fixed classes, repetitive academic activities, enormous pressure for further education, and very little socializing), which is why "from school uniform to wedding dress" inspires longing and envy.
Actually, toward "from school uniform to wedding dress," we can offer good wishes, but there is no need to envy it or mock ourselves. Between "staking one's future on an illusory future" and "steadily improving oneself, broadening one's vision and platform, and welcoming a better other half," you chose the latter. Even at worst, downward compatibility can still bring a happy family. What is there to mock yourself about?
So-called "white moonlight" and "cinnabar mole" can be sealed away as beautiful memories, recalled in leisure moments with warmth rising in the heart. But if one sinks into them and cannot extricate oneself, that truly counts as a kind of disorientation and intoxication.
Fourth, when people say they "want to date," what exactly do they want?
1. They lack a sex life and want to find someone to make love with.
That is, the possession of sex and body under "possessiveness." Some phenomena may indicate that someone holds this idea, such as the previously mentioned "confirming a romantic relationship without deep understanding" and using "body/appearance" as the "main criterion" for choosing a partner.
2. They lack love inwardly and spiritually long to be loved.
There are many reasons: family of origin, growth experience... As mentioned at the beginning of the article, this article does not discuss "emotion" (I will not conduct psychoanalysis, and I do not know how), so I will not expand on this point.
3. They seek a kindred spirit and want to dispel loneliness.
That is, they long for an individual with whom they have "deep mutual understanding."
Quoted from an encyclopedia:
"Social atomization" refers to the social crisis of individual loneliness, disordered interaction, moral disorganization, interpersonal alienation, and social anomie caused by the disintegration or absence of the most important social linkage mechanisms in human society: intermediate organizations. Generally speaking, crises of social atomization arise during periods of drastic social change.
In an atomized society, individuals lack interests and specialties, leisure activities, and collective beliefs, and cannot dispel loneliness. When alone, he/she feels anxious, so they need the company of another individual to relieve pressure and provide emotional value.
Fifth, in current society, why do more and more young people not want to date?
1. Society is becoming more modern and tolerant, and "sexual behavior" can occur in "non-romantic relationships," such as "friends-with-benefits relationships."
2. They are inwardly strong and do not need to be loved.
3. They have learned to dissolve loneliness.
When an individual has the ability to dispel loneliness or even enjoy loneliness, such as finding hobbies and entertainment for solitude, like musical instruments, reading, games, writing, travel, or internal competition, an individual with whom they have "deep mutual understanding" becomes less important. Moreover, the individual with whom one has "deep mutual understanding" can also be a "good friend"; this characteristic of a "romantic relationship" is not unique.
4. Young people have begun to recognize the disadvantages of "romantic relationships."
(Excerpted from above.) Disadvantages:
1. Potential negative emotional risk.
2. Being possessed in various forms, restricting freedom.
3. High costs (compared with making friends).
Sixth, what is "love-brained"?
I believe "love-brained" refers to a group of people who, when establishing a "romantic relationship," only see one or several characteristics of a "stable, mainstream romantic relationship" being satisfied, and without considering whether the other characteristics (especially "deep mutual understanding") are satisfied, rush to establish the "romantic relationship." Or after the "romantic relationship" is established, they maintain only some of the characteristics and ignore the rest.
Of course, sometimes it is hard to distinguish "love-brained" from "strong sexual desire." The two look similar in behavior, but one cannot see the individual's inner thoughts.
2024.8.11 Fukuoka, Japan
Sent from my phone