Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO it's because dating is presented to members of society as a hunting-like challenge where men and women alike both seek to land the most desirable prize. There's no thrill in the chase when you date a charity case.
First of all, to list the dictionary definitions (as excerpted from webster.com):
Mercy
social Darwinism
In most contemporary everyday romantic interactions and popular norms, I see much of the latter, but relatively little of the former. One could conceivably make a case that many existing modern dating norms favor social Darwinism, much more than they might favor mercy. For example, even the near-universal insistence that men must be unquestionably and unconditionally seen as confident, powerful (and including the projection of being seen as powerful), etc. all would seem to lean much closer to social Darwinism, than being merciful. Many (perhaps most) people tend to automatically seek to be romantically-aligned with those on a comparable or higher relative level of power than themselves, but people also very infrequently ever seriously question why things are they way they are, or have the capacity to see *beyond* these haphazard, man-made rules, and to be able to truly think outside the box. IMO, it's almost like people let themselves be rigidly and dogmatically weighed down and constrained by these rules, simply because they happen to be the status quo.
And yet...people do have the ability to override, and even completely disregard what society has arbitrarily decided as the "rules of the game". Men and women *both* have the ability to be more merciful than not, if they so consciously choose. For men, this might perhaps involve giving a fair and legitimate romantic chance to women who would potentially make wonderful girlfriends for them, who are also not necessarily in the perceived top- or highest-level tier of physical looks and beauty. For women, one way they could be more "merciful" might be to not assign confidence in a male as an absolute, inviolate standard that they will not ever deviate from, under any circumstances -- for instance, to seriously re-consider not rejecting a guy who might make a great romantic match for her in every other possible way, but who just happens to be down on his personal level of confidence, for whatever reason.
All of society in the distant past once thought the world was flat, but the discovery that the world was -- in fact -- round, caused a complete sea-change in thinking and thought processes. Instead of blind acceptance that the rules of dating and relationships are rigidly unchanging and unchangeable, why not at least consider trying to remake the rules to be more (rather than less) merciful, fairer, more equitable, and more just, to both genders? Change, so that much less people are excluded and unwelcome from having loving and meaningful romantic relationships for dogmatic and inflexible reasons? Thoughts?
Hmm I read & re-read this, Knight.
I agree with you on this.... We shouldn't blindly accept the "rules" of society; we should trust our hearts.
If more people were more open to taking chances, with people who don't always fit their "types," maybe they'd actually find who they're looking for.
Just be careful not to over-analyze the whole process, lol which is what I have done previously
I personally dislike social-darwanism and social darwanists, and the like. If people approach relationships, friendships, marriages from a Machiavellian point of view, then there really is no such thing as true love, and why should there be?
How come the opposite of social-darwarnism is considered mercy? If anything, mercy is another term used from a social darwinist approach to look down on someone we may consider dating as a form of pity. That in itself does not convey love, and offers to maintain status quo.
Love with regards to relationships does not seek competition or materialistic means to define people.
Depends on the sociopolitical context. Not every society strives for materialism and competition like they do in capitalistic societies where people are valued for what they have and not whom they are. People are not commodities, nor are their children.
How come the opposite of social-darwarnism is considered mercy? If anything, mercy is another term used from a social darwinist approach to look down on someone we may consider dating as a form of pity. That in itself does not convey love, and offers to maintain status quo.
....
It was not my intention to equate mercy with pity. Rather, in the context I was talking about, I had meant to equate mercy with feelings of greater compassion and enhanced kindness and more softened hearts for others, in romantic situations, as I believe the dictionary definitions I had cited in my original post alluded to.
If your theory were true and it was the norm for people to adhear to the "rules" there would very few people married or in relationships.
Id also like to add that one does not decide if they have chemistry with a person. You do or you dont.
I second that. I knew on my first date with DH that I would marry him. I married him 9 months after I met him and we are still passionately in love 27 years later. On the other hand I had a friend who prostituted herself and married a man 30 yrs. her senior for the meal ticket. She said that she learned to love him, but also complained about how miserable the relationship was. I've known of arranged marriages that were happy and others that weren't. I guess it's all a crap shoot. but there's something to be said for that initial intense attraction. That is just something that can't be forced.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,029,399 times
Reputation: 11862
Watch a nature documentary. Read about books about biology, evolutionary biology, anthropology.etc. It'll make you cynical about love and romance. I think it's just reflective of the fact we are just animals who want to pass the rest genes on to our children to repeat the cycle again.
I do agree with you however that a certain percentage of men and women can look beyond these shallow biological urges and relate more on a 'soul level.'
It was not my intention to equate mercy with pity. Rather, in the context I was talking about, I had meant to equate mercy with feelings of greater compassion and enhanced kindness and more softened hearts for others, in romantic situations, as I believe the dictionary definitions I had cited in my original post alluded to.
I don't think any of that stuff stands a chance against sheer attraction and chemistry when it comes to romance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Change, so that much less people are excluded and unwelcome from having loving and meaningful romantic relationships for dogmatic and inflexible reasons? Thoughts?
I second that.
I knew on my first date with DH that I would marry him. I married him 9 months after I met him and we are still passionately in love 27 years later. On the other hand I had a friend who prostituted herself and married a man 30 yrs. her senior for the meal ticket. She said that she learned to love him, but also complained about how miserable the relationship was. I've known of arranged marriages that were happy and others that weren't. I guess it's all a crap shoot. but there's something to be said for that initial intense attraction. That is just something that can't be forced.
