Sex in the Suburbs

Relationships: Do they ever break out of the mold?

I always sit down with some of the female editors before I write this column. We discuss ideas and I come away with an assignment.

For this column, Cheryl, the Variety editor, asked, "Do we always date the same person?" To which I responded, "Yes and no."

My good friend, sophomore Adam Lowe, answered the question with a resounding "no." Of the dozen or so girls he’s dated, Lowe said that no two were the same. Some have been intellectual, some have been creative — each girlfriend’s personality and, thus, relationship dynamic has been different, Lowe said.

"I think, at this point in our lives, it’s about experimenting — it’s too early to limit ourselves to one personality," he said.

I’m not much for dating, mostly because I have "the one" — a perfect soulmate — already defined and pictured in my mind.

Despite my lack of enthusiasm for commitment, I see two clear reasons why we date the same person: Intent and mental connection.

First, we begin looking with intent for a mate with a small — or large — list of criteria. On some items, we compromise and on some, we don’t. For example, I like blondes, but also am open to variety if there are other redeeming qualities in an individual.

Intent is the simplest reason because everyone has a fundamental understanding of what a good mate should be. People like Lowe have demonstrated they are more willing to make exceptions when it comes to dating.

Of course we find ourselves dating the same person if we demand a strict set of criteria from everyone we date. If I always look for blonde intellectuals and never look at a brunette, it’s certain that a pattern will develop.

For each quality and characteristic over which you refuse to compromise — hair color, for example — you increase the number of similar qualities and characteristics seen in your boyfriends or girlfriends.
Mental connections are strongest in the aftermath of a breakup. We ponder why the relationship didn’t work.

Questions like these are leading questions — they assume that every relationship is intended to work and that something must have gone wrong. Following this train of thought, we then wonder what that something was. Then we begin to see trends in our relationships. Stop thinking like this.

These trends are born because we want them to be there. We look for reasons and end up inventing them. Anyone can find a theme if they look hard enough — but these themes are not credible.

People like Lowe, who are more open to experimentation, are less likely to see trends in their dating history. But this doesn’t mean they are happier than the rest of us.

My conception of the perfect partner is someone who will complete me (pardon the reference to Doctor Evil) — who will complement and compensate for my shortcomings. My perfect partner will have incredible patience and empathy for others and will go round-for-round with me in an intellectual argument.

Sure, gentlemen (like me) prefer blondes, but they don’t always marry them.

Maybe we’ve been dating the same people, and maybe we’ve been connecting dots — that’s for you to decide.

I hear many people bemoan being in relationship with liars, cheaters and all manner of bad people. The trends gain credibility, but really just call for action.

No one should demean themselves by always being in painful relationships. I don’t offer my sympathy to anyone who willingly stays in a destructive relationship for these are the worst of all relationships.

The argument has been made that some people like the distress, but someone with a doctorate in psychology should challenge the assumption.