The hazards of moral hazard

I’ve been thinking quite a lot about how, when or even if I will participate in another romantic relationship.

I’ve a long history of not-so-good experiences with men. I view so many of them as negative because I have long maintained a core belief that relationships, at least the more serious ones, are basically an exercise in analytics and economic concepts. Efforts you put in place to ensure that the initial chemistry goes unsullied by fights about things that are actually fights about other things. It turns out I'm somewhat rare in this belief. Although not as rare as I would have thought...

Anyway, lacking a good base in economics, I only recently came to the realization that these were solid and established concepts. I would go to great lengths to develop metaphors in order to explain myself, only to have someone point out to me that the last half hour of baroque language could be summed up as "sunk costs."

Take for, example, Moral Hazard.

Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.

Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

This particular one resonates with me, not only because I tend to be a pushover with men when it comes to demanding much of... anything. But also because it gives me that high you get from righteous indignation. (Am I right?)

We've long since lost any sort of robust social infrastructure that disincentives bad dating behavior, so now everybody is pretty much free to be awful to everybody else without consequence. Aside from the emotional leftovers of last year, weakened moral hazard is big part of why I've sidelined myself from any opportunity - reactive and proactive - to experience romance. I just don't care to open that door right now.

And I just keep seeing example after example of individuals who are merely seeking to find solid ground in their relationship being... ignored, undermined, blown off, and sometimes outright disrespected, because their own perspectives and demands no longer carry weight and it's ceased to be acceptable for a third party (hopefully objective) to come in and point out the problem.

I assume we’re all equally guilty of suppressing that fantasy where you confront an individual in defense of someone close to your heart who is: taken for granted; used as a doormat; or being strung along. There are hundreds of conversations I’ve not had with the past, current and future partners of people in my life.

I can't help but wonder if maybe we were in the habit of holding people accountable for their bad dating/marriage behavior, maybe, just maybe, there would be less of it. Strengthened moral hazard = less weasely behavior.

In my earlier dating life, I would have dissolved into a panic if my friends or family dared to step in to my romantic life, but now, now I would love to have some panic button, some way to call out the cavalry, led by an imaginary southern aunt who would come face to face with the offending chap in a not-to-be-interrupted rant that would go something like this:

“Now boy, I hear you’ve been avoidin’ makin’ a firm commitment to our girl? Now why is that, pray tell? Is our baby girl not good enough for you? Do you mean to tell me that after months of pitchin’ woo in such a brazen and public manner that would dare to back-peddle about what the intentions of those actions truly were. Do you think I was born yesterday, boy? Now it’s one thing to change your mind about something, but I would like to assume you were brought up with enough sense to know when you have gone a mile too far and son, I will tell you that at this point, you done passed that mile about three states back and your horse is about to die from exhaustion. I know you weren’t raised up to be wild hooligan, so how about you make your momma proud and dig deep into that cavernous mind of yours and bring to bear some of the more gentlemanly behaviors we expect of our men folk ‘round here.”

See that, THAT, would be that kind of thing that would strengthen moral hazard.

But I do not have a southern aunt capable of letting my suitors know that I am not to be trifled with. And frankly, I do not see how simply adopting and enforcing stringent rules about what constitutes “good dating behavior” is going to turn me into anything but a ball-busting nag.

So I'm just staying out of the game for the time being.

But now and then, I do indulge in what I would want when I find someone new with whom I share chemistry. It would look something like this...

• To be able to stop the inevitable emotionally-charged conversation with, "Wait. This isn't about ___________. Can we figure out what this is really about?"
• To know that he understands that emotionally-charged conversations are fairly commonplace in emotionally-charged relationships, and frankly, represent a good way to quickly identify issues that could continue to cause problems.
  
• To willingly face those issues as you would face any other challenge: with research, data, trial-and-error and logical decision-making.
  
• To understand that doing this doesn't negate the chemistry and fun of a relationship - it tends to shorten the laundry list of Things That Cause Tension, which actually leaves more time and energy for all the fun stuff that we're all looking for from another person.
  
• To think it's adorable that I want to distill the logistics of a happy and healthy relationship to economic concepts and understands exactly what I mean when I talk about how weak moral hazard leads to bad dating experiences, and then proceeds to tell me about the time when asymmetric information led to a truly awful first date a couple of years ago...
  

The world is barren enough

The most heart-rending comment on Prop 8 via MSNBC.

I could not get the video to embed, but do try to watch it - text is provided in link.

So, how long do you think I have?

I read a great essay in the Times about longevity, and what it takes to get the most out of our short time in the mortal coil.

Given the 6+ hours last night I spent fretting about everything, I thought I should take the suggested Blue Zones quiz to determine my projected lifespan. According to my current status, I am currently 29.6 years old (almost 3 years younger than I actually am) and I'm projected to live 88.7 years, with 74.9 years described as "healthy."

I don't like the idea of 14 years of "unhealthy" - but I think I can affect that with obvious changes I've already incorporated in my life, such as more exercise and an increased intake of fresh foods.

What I found most interesting were the two determiners of the outcome that are somewhat (but not really) surprising: stress/outlook and belonging.

I took the quiz a few times and played with the answers to see what happened.

They predict that those who consume between 1-2 drinks daily will achieve a longer span than those who abstained or overdid it.
They correlate a higher level of education with a longer life.
Those married or in long-term loving relationships gain points over those single, widowed or divorced - although all three land on the same point on the scale.
Those who have a more solid sense of belonging to community (they have two indicators: church and group activities) also correlate to a longer life.

So here's what I think...

Maybe a drink now and then would ease stress. And belonging to a community increases your safety net, and gives you a place to vent your frustrations and accomplish something beyond yourself - you know that you have a place to receive unconditional love and acceptance, and what about that WON'T make you want to hold out a few more years.

The education appears to correlate to community as well, although it may tie into the portion that has to do with annual earnings. Having increased my personal communities greatly through both my masters and undergraduate education, I can say that my education was an excellent predictor for "belonging."

As for coupledom, I think that's a hard call, because a bad one will increase stress levels and therefore decease life span (according to this model) whereas I think (strike that, I KNOW) that a solid friend/family community can be a more than an ample replacement for a partner.

That said, I'm solidly in The Blue Zone, but I need to find a way to let go of stress, frustration and the anger they create together.

I'm going to retake the test in July and see if anything has changed...

My greatest fear, in black and white

Avoiding this moment is exactly why I've lived my life the way I have.

Thanks Lynn Johnson.

success!

the wedding was smashing success
(I went with dottie 50s housewife shoes - btw)
the minister got a little heavy-handed in the homily about two being better than one.

by the time it was over, I was convinced that I was going to die in a freezing cold bed.
alone.
with no one to find my body.
or mourn my death.
and that singlehood is an indicator of being forsaken by a higher power.
and should be avoided at all costs.

and then I found out later that the minister recently experienced a divorce.

yeah...

it was a little intense.

but otherwise, the friends, company, food and wine were great.
everything necessary for a great party.

Smug domesticity

Slate had a great article about the inevitable shift of "chick lit" into "mommy lit."

I've been thinking for some time about some of the themes this critic touches on, mostly that of the smug domesticity.

Don't get me wrong, I have my Martha moments, and I love looking at the Restoration Hardward catalog and imaging a nice clean sage and silver life - but what get under my skin is the domesticity that invariably comes with marriage and the smug attitude that this is exactly what one's whole life has been leading up to.

...and the problems that come when slightly-harried-and-lovin'-it turns into oh-my-god-I-had-no-idea-this-is-what-it-would-be-like.

Because somehow it seems with all the lifestyle brands - Crate & Barrel, Pottery Barn, J Crew - we've taken the already romanticized notion of married life and turned it into a completely unattainable goal that leads many to disappointment and some into divorce.

I've been wondering if my generation may be completely unprepared for the realities of long-term, committed relationships.

It seem we're all about the narcissistic love, the its-about-me-being-me love; in other words, the conditional love. Which is fine, if you admit it's conditional. But we don't. We buy rings and take vows and stuff conditional into a box labeled "unconditional" and act suprised and defeated when it doesn't work out.

I think we need to find someway to let marriage be marriage, but in the context of the current consumer environment.

And yes, I said consumer.

Because choosing a mate is on some level like shopping.
What better indicator of who you are than who you choose to represent your other half.
And that's what lifestyle brands and consumer choices seem to be all about... identifying yourself as a member of some larger tribe.
Are you le creuset or cuisanart?
j crew or anthropologie?
starbucks or deweys?
hummer or prius?
east side or west side?
urban or suburban?

So you choose and get chosen, and things feel good and life sort of reflects the fantasy. But what about when the person you choose changes? Depression sets in? Or they find a commitment to a new diety? Or it's just not right? What then?

The tension between the conditional and the unconditional sets in.
(Buyer's remorse...?)
How long do you support them?
At what point is the change too much?
Is it selfish to leave or foolish to stay?

It's not like you can just... return them.
And you rarely have the power the change them (even if you can withhold sex - ladies, this DOES NOT WORK... sets a BAAAAAAD precedent and ruins things for those of us next in line...
seriously.)

And to add insult to injury, leaving seems to be this black hole of devastating personal failure since marriage and settling down have been pretty much accepted as the ultimate goal.

So obviously, it stands to reason that if you achieve it - and then lose it - you've somehow failed as a member of society.

I think we're setting ourselves up for failure.

Soul-sucking, depression-causing, people-breaking failure.

Are long-term relationships doomed as long as we have fickle consumer tendancies?

Would anyone get married if they knew its not all backyard barbeques and clutter-free living rooms?

I'm just curious to know since I'll be walking down an aisle as a bridesmaid for the SEVENTH TIME this weekend.
And a couple of friends have recently announced divorces/separations.

So there's a whole lotta stuff swirling around up there.

A little Carrie - post happy hour, even!

i mentioned in my last post that i was reading isak dineson's "on modern marriage." i found this book during my time in arizona - written, i think - as a response to her experiences with an unfaithful husband and her love affair with Denys Finch Hatten. as you can guess, it's fairly down on marriage as an institution. i was also reading it at a time when friends were starting to marry off - and as a bridesmaid and fairly single person - i started researching the concept of marriage from all possible vantage points.

it was my first real experience of watching marriages fail - the work i did was long and tiring, leading to a lot of emotional intimacy between co-workers - leading to alienation of affection - leading to divorces left and right.

it was right after undergrad, so my experience thus far was that marriage was the Goal - it was the next thing after the diploma and the foundation on which your "real life" could begin.

but i always had kind of a neutral position on marriage - i knew from experiencing disappointment - in general - that wanting something completely out of my control would just lead to misery, so it was never on my list of things to do - also, as an only child, i'm not prone to needing company as much as someone with siblings may be - my own theory.

anyway, its almost 7 years later and i've been to a great deal more weddings - i have one upcoming in late summer - and one next spring... and the dating pool is decidedly more divorced - so I’ve been re-evaluating my own thoughts about marriage... i'm still pretty not into it - but i'm into the idea of an ongoing monogamous understanding with someone else... so where does an “understanding” end and a marriage begin? and how and when do you drop the bomb that that's your goal? so far, i find myself involved with others who also date outside the box - however, they tend to be much further outside the box than i am - which presents its own difficulties.
some got beat up by the box - so anything resembling the box is a problem.
some have extreme philosophical hatred of the box - so (see above)
and some simply refuse to admit the box exists.

would i do it? - maybe, but with less wedding and more anniversary parties. i've always thought that weddings are like having a graduation party when you get accepted to a college. it's a celebration of potential. but potential and expectation rarely play out as planned - so why not celebrate the proven success instead?

i think maybe not relying on marriage may actually make me a more high mantainance girl... with marriage, you can lean on the institution and get lazy - but without it, you have to be present with the other person. if you're not present or engaged (no pun intended) with the other person, and there's no contract to keep you together... well, you can easily have nothing.

but isn't it that gradual growing apart that leads to problems in marriage? - when passion turns to frustration and daily tasks take over the discovery of this other person. even when you logically know otherwise, there is an expectation that one person is going to sweep in and be your everything - and what a tremendous amount of pressure to put on another person, especially one that loves you.

anyway, sometimes i feel like i somehow missed the bus - but i'm not sure it's a bus i want to be on, but there is a legitimacy that it brings to your life, if only in the eyes of others. people congratulate you when they hear you got a masters degree but BOY do they light up when you tell them you're seeing someone with "potential"