Sexual Competition

"There is no such thing as sexual competition, there is only the continual coming to terms with the fact that one can never be someone else to one's partner, that we are so quickly typecast in our relationships. Our rivals are merely other people. They are helpless, like us, because they only really have one advantage over us, and it is always decisive. they will never be us."

Discuss.

(This is from a speculative philosophy book on monogamy By the way...)

[Edited on Oct 13, 2003 by plathandpinter]

So...we're all screwed?

I think he's saying that relationships are not really a "competition", as some people like to construe them, because once two people get to know each other in a relationship, their roles are irrevocably defined to each other (be they submissive/dominant or whatever).

And I think that's true to some extent, but I also think that relationships can go through crises that can force a restructuring of the relationship dynamic -- catching one's spouse in an act of infidelity and severe economic hardship are some examples of this.

tis true. i wish it were not, but i think what he's saying is this;
that once you meet someone, its over. you are as they met you, in their eyes. they will hold you to it 9 times out of 10, and this trackpad is driving me nuts.
but when someone is willing to let their opinions of you continually change, that is a good person for you, in a sense.
all too often we meet someone, fall in love, and a year later wonder why it seems so impossible to upkeep our own personal growth. ever noticed?
but i do disagree that "we can never be someone else to our partner," i do it all the time. its called roleplaying, and the better you are at it.......
it can rule is all i'll say.


editied to fix my "toos"...

[Edited on Oct 13, 2003 by toiletooth]

It's saying that we shouldn't worry about sexual infidelity as everyone sees something particular in their partners whcih they can't get in someone else: we never love different people for the same reasons...

Think deeeeeeeper...

I think this has to do with hot oil wrestling...

Man, i can see where this is heading...

*watches intellectual integrity leave the board and enter porn theatre.*

Bow-chika-wow-wow...

"Think Deeeeeper"

ok.
we can never be new. we can never be as exciting as a new crush. that's what you were saying?

but i think you were actually saying that after some serious DEEP DICKING, all of our little problems are magically ironed out. i'm totally agreeing with you there.
thanks!

God Damn quotable Jason Lee Mofo!

Plathandpinter said:

There is no such thing as sexual competition, there is only the continual coming to terms with the fact that one can never be someone else to one's partner, that we are so quickly typecast in our relationships. Our rivals are merely other people. They are helpless, like us, because they only really have one advantage over us, and it is always decisive. they will never be us."

That first sentence is a doozy; it's a run-on that actually seems to be purporting several different ideas. The second sentence is a fragment, which should have been combined with the third. Speaking of the third, what is the advantage not mentioned which is "always decisive". And the final sentence is also a fragment which should have been combined with the third. All in all I'd say the only thing I can offer about this is that someone needed a good editor before going to publication.

However, if you can explain what the heck it means to you, Plathandpinter, point by point, I might be able to offer some input beyond the simple construction of the paragraph, because as Al said, "... that made very little sense.".

[Edited on Oct 13, 2003 by Pucabul]

Sounds like it is ripped from a Sartre treatise.

I'll clear this up: The guy who wrote this is a psychotherapist called Adam Phillips and i have a whole book of this stuff, yeah his sentance structuring is awful, but i kinda get an idea what he's on about.

There is no such thing as sexual competition, there is only the continual coming to terms with the fact that one can never be someone else to one's partner, that we are so quickly typecast in our relationships.

OK, Phillips is implying that when we meet someone we form very fixed conceptions of them very soon, perhaps this has something to do with trust - if you don't know how someone is going to act, how can you trust them with being faithful, therefore we make fixed assumptions.


Our rivals are merely other people. They are helpless, like us, because they only really have one advantage over us, and it is always decisive. they will never be us."

This section explains that our 'rivals' are different from us,and we should not think that an 'unfailthful' partner for example loves them for the same reasons they love us. The advantage is that they are not us, you can be loved for who you are and how your partner assumes you are, but this doesn't mean that they think about someone else they love/fuck/occasionally see in the same way they see you, this is a reassuring notion.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

I wouldn't be reassured if my partner slept with some other girl and came back with, "I love you both differently, so it's okay." I tend to grow claws at statements like that.

sounds like an easy cop-out for cheaters to me. of course your partner can't be someone else, that's (supposedly) why you're with him/her, because they are who they are and you like/love that about them.

Methinks Adam Phillips was having difficulty coming to grips with an unfaithful partner.

I would have recommended crappy poetry but hey.. bitter speculative philosophy is a close second right?

Though I agree essentially with what he says. Wonder what that says about me?
I was never particularly in favor of monogamy anyway.. so I guess i'm not one to judge.

Uh huh. One big flaw I can find in this logic is that while people view their different sexual/romantic partners in different lights, that doesn't mean there's never any overlapping. Saying that essentially novelty is the only reason people aren't monogamous is pretty flimsy when there plenty of other reasons, and plenty of them involve not all partners being considered equals.

Oh, and I don't buy this "there's no such thing as sexual competition" concept, either. Humans are animals after all, and the basic sexual competition instincts still remain in some part of our reptile brain. You can actively try and counteract that with logic and reason, but it seems silly to deny it exists altogether.

I love Al.