Thursday 26 October 2006

Pic of the day: I know this feeling. Complete with literal shaking as if from frost. It is how I feel if I get alone with a potential romantic prospect.

Love-shyness

While researching for the Sumomo review, I happened upon a full article in Wikipedia about Love-shyness. And I realized that if for some reason any of my regular readers found it, they would think this fit me to a T. Even I noticed! Of course, I also noticed the things that did not fit. And I think this nicely illustrates what is cause and what is effect here.

Of course, before we get overly excited, we should remember that this is largely the work of one man, and love-shyness has never been acknowledged as a clinical condition by any country's health authorities or national psychiatric organizations. Whether there is a good reason for this, or just part of the general callousness that further increases the suffering of those who never get any, I will leave as an exercise for the reader. (NOT WORKSAFE soundtrack.)

Still, it is a remarkable fact that these people exhibit some of the traits that set me apart from everyone I know. It may also give us a valuable insight in what is cause and what is effect here. Because even though we have so much in common, my backstory is for the most part very different from theirs.

***

My parents did not criticize me much or invade my privacy. On the contrary, they treated me with more respect than is common for parents, as if they somehow believed that I would know from inside what was right and wrong, needing only a few basic guidelines to keep me out of the really bad stuff until I found my own way. They went out of the way to not impress their own values and preferences on me. Until I was nearly grown I did not know for sure neither their exact religion nor their political preferences. Nor did they offer me any opinion on sexuality. (Obviously they were heterosexual, given that we were four children and probably could have been more if not for miscarriages. What I mean is that they offered no judgment on what they must have discovered about my own budding sexuality.) Despite their mostly hands-off approach, I rarely doubted that my parents would have walked barefoot through Hell and back for me if need be, or that they considered me more important than their own lives by far.

Family members never tried to discourage dating, although they did not encourage it either. This is largely because I was still in my voice-change when I moved out from home. But this in itself is certainly a break from the "overly controlling parent" image.

Melancholic? Depressed? I don't think so. Cynical, yes, sure. But year after year spent singing and whistling to myself, or even singing in my sleep according to my brother, does not sound very depressed to me.

Homelessness and poverty? Well, this is Norway. You have to go to extremes to achieve homelessness and poverty here. And when the winter comes, you die. So... not exactly. Though I can see how homelessness and poverty would reduce a man's confidence toward the opposite sex. Really, I can.

As for the "shyness" part: I don't exactly suffer from shyness. I enjoy speaking to crowds, though I rarely have a reason to. In an informal job or school setting, I will often be the one to take the initiative, get people to know each other and get started on whatever we were supposed to be doing. It is only when it comes to personal relationships that I withdraw.

And of course the real difference: It is not simple shyness that keeps me from the cuddlier gender. There are physical and mental deformities that practically ensure that neither she nor I would enjoy the most intimate meeting of a man and woman. When my subconscious went out of its way to scare me away from getting too close to women, it knew better than I how meaningless such a relationship would have been. Of course, it might be the case for these "love-shy" men too, but there is not much to imply it. Such a confluence of contra-indicators is fairly rare in one and the same man, I think: Almost no social need, two genital deformities, and a creepy variant of heterosexuality. It should be enough to convince anyone of Intelligent Design, I think. Someone up there is definitely saying "No shaking the peach tree, little man!"

***

In light of this, it is all the more surprising how much I have in common with these love-shy men. (Or how much they have in common with me...)

No sisters? I am not sure which of two differences this would have made to the average man: Probably it would be much easier to talk to women if you were familiar with women your own age. On the other hand, you might be less eager to... I don't think women would be as fascinating if you were used to them acting like spoiled brats! For me, however, it would make next to no difference. It would certainly make no difference to my body, and I doubt it would encourage me to seek corrective surgery at a young age. Quite possibly the opposite. I guess we have to chalk this one up as a coincidence, albeit an intriguing one.

There are several, however, that looks to me like consequences rather than reasons. I have even written extensively about two of them. Most notably, the fact that these men are earning much less than their classmates. I don't so much believe in the implied hypothesis that celibate men can't get well-paid jobs. There may be some jobs at the top of the career ladder where having a family is an implicit requirement, but you certainly don't need to be a taxi driver just because you don't have sex. For the vast majority of jobs people are not going to ask you about your sex life in any form. And I refuse to believe that most men get their jobs through the social network of their sex partners. It may occasionally happen with a wife who has a well- connected family, but I sincerely doubt that you are talking with your one night stands about job prospects!

No, I think these men have chosen less challenging jobs because a part of them knows that even if they earned more money, they couldn't use it to get sweet loving. I am personally shocked by just how much less money a man needs without a family. Theoretically there should be heaps of money to spare from having two incomes. And even with one income, if there were no children, the extra cost would be moderate indeed. You may need a larger bed, but you don't need two fridges or two stoves. Even two sofas would kind of defeat the purpose. In short, two people don't need a lot more money than one. Not to mention that even if the woman didn't go out to earn money, she would presumably do something useful, leaving more time for the man. But this is not how it works. Even before they marry, if at all, the men with a lover will work harder and smarter and be more focused on their career. I believe that this is a kind of instinct similar to the tropical weaver birds, who build large homes out of leaves and decorate them with colorful flowers and pebbles. Convergent evolution, baby! Just like insects, dinosaurs, birds and mammals all took to the air at different times, so weaver birds and men both work hard to impress the chicks.

Note that if a man is not celibate, but has random sexual encounters, he will still usually have expenses. He has to dress up, he has to buy the food and entertainment, or at least alcohol. The race is still on to impress the chicks. Only if you know deep down that you won't ever get any, can you live comfortably on half what others find barely enough.

I don't blame women for their implied part of the bargain, either. Some may call it a form of prostitution (in fact, back when feminism was radical, it was commonly heard that marriage was organized prostitution). But I call it instincts. We may feel that it is beneath our station to have instincts, but this does not deter the instincts. They are just working more subtly than in less intelligent species. And the more intelligent the humans in question, the more subtly the instincts have to work. But even if women decide firmly to never have children, the limbic system in their brain tells them differently, and the ability of a man to Provide is a major part of his sex appeal. And the man knows this, just as instinctively. (Or if he lacks that instinct, he will soon find himself in the slow lane.)

***

The other confirmation of my theories is the seemingly random observation that the love-shy men are less patriotic. Now regular readers will know that I am not patriotic at all. I may live in the world's best country (or so says the United Nations) but there is no way I would bear arms for it. I can think of a large number of reasons to kill a large number of people – in fact, I could probably talk about this for a whole evening without stop – but being born on the wrong side of an imaginary line is NOT one of them, not ever, not under any circumstance. That is just delusional, and it would be better to shoot the crazy people.

But as I have described before in great detail, the modern nation-state depends on the triumph of monogamy over polygamy, even though women may prefer polygamy if given the choice. When two nations go to war, the married men will fight for their wife and children. They will not fight for the king's wife and children. In fact, single men who don't get any are more likely to side with whoever has a realistic plan to boil the sultan alive and send the harem off to the brothels.

I think we can place the lack of patriotism too firmly on the side of effects rather than causes.

I'd be happy to comment on more of the points, but I'm not supposed to write a book here. I am supposed to write a book in November, remember? And while you can't see this from today's date, that is actually only one day away. So you will escape with some of your sanity intact this time. Count yourself lucky...