Broken in the head.

So this one may be a bit difficult to phrase, was thinking about it on the way into work this morning.

Some background: In my undergraduate course on archaeology, I did a subject in which we were told Romans believed in a kind of dichotomy of sexual relations, by that I mean there were two roles, kind of opposite but complimentary, of passive and active. This covered all concievable configurations they believed could be counted as sex, ie: woman-man and man-man (apparently girls cant "give" sex, only "recieve" therefore the term passive and active).

Ok so the Roman dichotomy is not that nice or well thought out in my opinion because it is too embedded in physicallity and patriachal preconception. But, if I were to say, rather than it being a predictive theory, but more a framework to capture "average" behavior, i would modify it a bit and accept it as almost reasonable. Instead of active and passive, i would have proactive and reactive. I wouldn't limit the action/interaction to physicallity either, but have an aspect of social interaction as well.

To explain: It seems like some people are driven by desires, and others just enjoy thier desires. So taking the female-male element from the roman dichotomy idea, the guy is active because he is (essentailly) the one doing the penetration. But the proactive/reactive part, its more like the one who is driven more (may be the guy or the girl) is reacting to the other person more, while the other person who is more relaxed about the situation is proactive. This is because the person who is driven is less in control of their choice of behavior, its a reaction to circumstance. While the other person is choosing to do something they enjoy, therefore creating circumstance (ie pro - before). There are many different actual positions and rewards(ie. enjoy them enjoying it / enjoy the physical/ enjoy the attention) from/of the activity, but the positions are less important than the motivatinos for the reward on the role the pro/re takes. Which is something the Roman dichotomy doesnt really seem to include.

So when you like someone and they dont like you back, but you have difficulty moving on, it makes your behaviour reactive to the circumstance. Maybe this is not a bad thing, but i personaly dont like loosing the ability to make my own decissions, I hate behing a slave to desire, it seems to enfeeble you, and hence reduce your value. Someone who is able to shift their crush easily after discovering it is unrequited is much more proactive. This example highlights that being proactive reactive in a relationship is relationship dependant more than individual dependant. Although I could also see individuals trending towards one role more often in their relationships.

Anyway, this idea was what i came up with to answer a question i have about myself in relation to behaviour i have noticed myself exhibiting. When someone likes me, yet i dont show any interest in them, part of me is less interested, because its like they are less in control of themselves and i value self control / relisation. When i like someone who doesnt like me back, it makes me feel like i have acknowledged their superiority, and therefore lowered my own value in comparison, at which point the only way to gain equivilance again is for them to be smitten in return. But if life is about maximising value (everyone likes to think they are getting the better deal) then this explains why i have a tendency to shy away from realisable relationships, and pine after impossible ones. Either that or its one of the cliches: chip on shoulder / wanting what we cant have / low self esteem / fear of commitment.

Anyway, what bought about this train of thought? Episode of shameless UK, Liam says something along the lines of:

Whats the point of all the lying and difficulty in getting and keeping a relationship? so you've got someone to keep you warm at night? doesnt seem worth it, you can always keep yourself warm, like carl does every night when he thinks ive fallen asleep.

And then when i got into bed i was like, well it cant be that difficult, difficult is splitting the atom, going to the moon, etc. having a relationship is done by nearly everyone on the planet, it must be difficult like breathing, or pumping blood around the body. That is to say complex but mostly autonomic. Therefore there must be something incorrect about my autonomic system. Therefore what is the sysmptoms, therefore ... see above. :p