Another one from the cynic

Pardon this belated rebuttal. I was trying to sound less critical or harsh if i could.

But working in an environment that is ill-tolerant of flaws, i've grown pretty used to identifying them and being told off about them.

i considered not posting this but there has been calls from other cynics to balance the perspective a bit.

So just a couple of points:

Firstly, your post is titled Economics of the Dating Game, but there wasn't any economics involved. So that's a misnomer there.

Secondly, notice i did not say that convenience is the only factor accounting for relationships. It is balanced by the mutual attraction and commitment as well. Perhaps a better way to counter my claims would be to base it on the relative importance of each factor.

Finally, I noticed that your argument centres a lot on the effort requried in sustaining a relationship. (which deviates quite a bit from my original post on how love hapens, but no matter, i think i can rebutt that point) Did it ever occur to you that staying in the relationship may just be the more convenient option?

Convenience not just in the more common sense of time and space dimensions, but also in terms of the effort saved in looking for a new partner, of getting over emotional hurt, and other intangibles.

Being practical-minded beings, I believe there is an unconscious Cost Benefit Analysis behind every decision - even if this process may be horribly skewed by subjectivity when it comes to a woolly topic like relationships. Pardon the economics analogy again.

So say if i were to remain in a relationship, the costs to me are: the money and effort spent on nurturing the relationship, the opportunity cost of the time wasted, the emotional ups and downs, and the lost opportunities of freer interactions wtih the opposite sex. On the other hand, the benefits will be that warm fuzzy feeling i get from him, the companionship, mutual support and what-nots.

Simply put, benefits outweigh costs, relationship wins. Otherwise, break-up wins.

This CBA is also the reason why many couples who still lvoe each other don't stay together - the costs are starting to extract an unbearable toll on two people in love.

Throwing aside economic technicalities, convenience may also account for the reason why many people stray and newer and more convenient relationships are formed at the expense of less convenient ones.

Let me recount the story of 4 guys who have - through varying means - tried to express interest in this gir. Barring the one pr whose advances smack of a booty call, convenience underlie the motivations of the other three, two of whom are already attached.

Sicne the focus here is on sustaining relationship let's just talk about the two attached dudes. There is no easy conclusion flowing from a comparison fo the usual basics - looks, personality, wits and what-nots. But what is interesting is that both the bfs are in the same Exco as the girl in qns and both their gfs have been complaining that they were spending a lot more time with the Exco than with them (note here that they have just raised the costs of staying in a relationship by subjecting the relationship to stress and pressrue). So i guess in both their cases, break-up woulod have become an easier way out if they could just secur a more convenient alternative to their existing gfs.

That said, i do believe that convenience may not be the only fctor at work in a relationship. And i must concede too, that the emphasis placed on convenience varies for individual to individual - which is why i still make an effort to screen people.

At the end of the day, i believe that the smaller role convenience plays in starting the relationship, the more likely the relaitonship will last. But once the relationship gets going, i think convenience matetrs mroe than ever to sustain it.

i hope no one has been offended by my post. Certainly, i wish all happily attached and happily single people happiness in relationships and singlehood. Neither am i completely convinced by my own arguments too - i think there are many loopholes that one can still capitalise on to deflate it. I'm just, like i explained, pointing out a couple of points.