Tom's Views

Dear [Mentat],

I would say that people without partners often have issues that reduce their abilities at sustaining other social relationships as well. These difficulties suggest that they might be less well adjusted than those who acquire and preserve successful relationships. Not always of course. Just quite often. Now I know you’re going to take issue with this. But let me explain.

While there’s nothing inherently less productive about short people for example, they are turned away from jobs sometimes because they might have Short Man’s Syndrome. This appears as paranoia that anything off-putting that befalls the short person, happens because they’re short. Often, they’re seen as troublemakers because many have challenged the prevailing yet unfair thinking. They don’t handle criticism well because they believe it’s offered as a form of put-down rather than a genuine aid to foster better future performance .

Not only does this occur with the small, but within any group attempting to buck prevailing societal prejudices: Blacks in the 60s, women in the 70s, gays in the 80s, and Muslims in the 90s. Many of them have anger, believing the world is ignorantly prejudiced against them. Whether that anger is justified or not, its very presence would make them appear less sociable. You remember how [our angry lady friend] used to throw tantrums over how non-disabled people regarded her as being so helpless? Her and [her husband] did much to   prejudice   the sighted world against the Pittsburgh blind. It’s easy to realize how after a few encounters with people like her, that folks might think that if you’re blind, you’re probably not well adjusted socially.

The whole 9/11 affair happened due to, among other factors, collective anger within the Muslim world that the West oppresses their beliefs, and treats them as second-class citizens in world endeavors. An interesting note about the hijackers: The National Geographic Channel just aired a 9/11 special, which I watched. Unless I missed it, only one or two of them had girlfriends and families. So far, I haven’t been able to find any evidence on Google that any of them were ever married. And to date, none of their wives or lovers has come forward to western media to discuss what went wrong. Given their years of preparations, they probably didn’t have time for romantic involvements, especially since they planned on dying anyhow. By western standards, these nineteen were clearly anti-social, or put another way, not well adjusted. With their minds so full of anger and hatred, I doubt they would have been loving people to women. Even if they had wives, they probably would have beat them. Again, not very well-adjusted behavior.

Consider also the Columbine massacre, its perpetrators described as loaners who involved themselves little in school and communal activities, who were also angry, bullied, excluded, and tortured souls. They were not popular among the ladies and had trouble maintaining friendships with others than themselves in their little anti-social twosome. Rather than being out among friends, they spent much time playing violent video games and listening to rough rock music. In fact, ladies’ spurns may have contributed to the final blast of anger that fueled the massacre.

Whether people excluded them because they were weird, or they got weird because people excluded them is academic. Their social withdrawal from friends and lovers, whether cause or effect, preceded their attack on the school. This pattern is found in so many crimes of passion, where the actor displays at-first harmless anti-social behaviors, that later grow into devastating ones.

Of course, not everyone who likes being off by himself commits violent crimes eventually. And spending lots of time alone in self-absorbed pursuits is not always considered anti-social behavior, particularly when the fruits of such [solitude] are periodically made public such as in the case of the writer who writes, or the artist who sculpts. However, when such crimes do occur, a look back into the actor’s history typically reveals a lifestyle of seclusion and alienation from the rest of society, including lovers. After criminals like the Unibomber, Harris and Klebold, and the 9/11 hijackers, folks are more sensitive to the possibility that the person who does not surround himself with friends and loved ones might be maladjusted, and as such, a potential threat.

In this way, the desire and ability to keep a love relationship going may indeed be a meaningful measure of social adjustment. While the so-called pillars of the community are not immune to turning anti-social, I believe it relatively rare that such people quickly transform into deviant angry souls who kill on mass scales, without some sort of prior indications in their relationships. It’s much more likely for the loner to do it, or for the person who becomes a loner first.

Of course, I realize that not everyone has the desire to be in relationships, and that it’s possible to be among the best-adjusted individuals without them. But given the prevalence of the need for love throughout our music, literature, art, movies, and culture in general, I’d say that the love lust is nearly universal. Practically everyone has it, and most people chase it to fulfillment. I’m sure it gets frustrating for the person who wants not for love, as well as for those do but to whom love has been denied, like me. Take a peak at the soc.singles newsgroup sometime, and you’ll find numerous posts from such people. They’re either upset because they can’t find love, or dismayed because they’ve decided to live alone but others are always on them to get hitched. Either life choice has its share of frustrations.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Effects Of Unrequited Love Needs
• We Don’t Live Happily Without Love
• We Must Love For Total Happiness