I ended up classifying my last "relationship" as a barely existing and casual (should it be BEC?), and it remained so (miserably, painfully dragged out) for its last year. And on its grave speech, one of the key "culprits" named was lack of my pro-activeness towards his parents (when with all evidence, half of his parental unit had transgressed all boundaries by dirty mouthing about a half of my parental unit - an event after which the BEC became a confirmed BEC, suddenly, out of nowhere, with no discussion, with no knowledge, I guess, by way of a "visual examination"). I sure hope I will never try to please my way to a booty call's parents (I hope I won't witness a good thing force-reset into a casual relationship either! Nor I will ever have anything to do with unserious man's family!). As I'm healing, I try to appreciate how lucky I was that an unexpected pregnancy, a disease, or moving across the ocean without a sign of commitment never happened. A dodged bullet indeed. It pretty much destroyed me emotionally, and leeched money out - money that was meant for valuable efforts, but the they got betrayed and stripped of value. But by sheer luck, it is the best deal out of a situation where I had no say that I could have: these things can be worked on and covered, even if one starts from zero again and again. I cannot get valuable years back though.
But the good news is, booty-call is getting scientific attention!
This means that we will have research in the areas where society constantly proved to rely on utopia and anecdata (research on cohabitation is a brilliant example of this; it is sad that ever since 80s when the first publications appeared, it did not have any societal impact whatsoever, except of maybe in elite educated families, but those categories knew it through tradition, they did not need university researchers to reinvent the wheel for them).
In an interview to salon.com's Broadsheet, the author says:
Well, if you engage in a one-night stand, the man essentially wins, and the woman loses. The opposite of that is a committed relationship: A guy puts all his potential mating effort into a single partner and she wins, she gets all of his investment. The booty call is a compromise, because neither partner wins and neither partner loses.
This, essentially, is what the person who asks for "equality" wants. No win, no loss. After all, you will forever escape divorce if you never marry. What you forget is that by forcing status quo, you live a divorced person's lifestyle of poor performance. If that is not losing, I do not know what is, then. Isn't it a super duper weird logic knowing that with a little effort, everyone could have a win-win? Something whispers to my ear, that preaching of biology should be supplemented by educating about Cuban Missile Crisis, game theory, and economics.
Aside of biology speech, I still do not capture why in modern day, men lose if they choose to have both feet in relationships. Am I alone to constantly witness that married men always do better than singles or men who are ashamed of their "partners" (in some countries, like Sweden, it is evident that married women also do better, especially at workplaces (informal fringe benefits), than their non-married counterparts)?
So here. Practicing my own grave speech (the term comes from Steve Duck's book - probably one of the first I ever read on relationships almost 20 years ago, and by far the best), and rejoicing about forward steps of social sciences that are applicable to the gravest problems of us humans.
