I don't mean to sound trite, but "tis better to have loved then lost, than never to have loved at all".
Living life with someone you love causes them pain. It also causes them joy. This is true whether you expect to die soon or live to be a hundred. So go out and live joyfully, and take what comes. If you fall in love, embrace that!
"Protecting" her from loss comes at the great cost of all of the joy the two of you would otherwise share. I've had a few friends who've lost a spouse to cancer or other tragedies when they were young, and they all seemed to view the time they were married as a net positive, even accounting for the loss at the end. YMMV.
Here's another catch-22: the depth of grief that someone experiences when losing a loved one is equal to the height of joy that they experienced when the lover was alive.
The solution is not to avoid deep love, it's to love deeply and be okay with grieving deeply.
Funny, I see the solution as being avoiding the attachment to begin with. His argument applies whether or not you have cancer. Relying on another person for happiness is a foolish move. It is a much better idea to learn to enjoy solitude.
Funny, I see the solution as being avoiding the attachment to begin with. His argument applies whether or not you have cancer. Relying on another person for happiness is a foolish move. It is a much better idea to learn to enjoy solitude.
Very Zen.
On the other hand:
Ten no atauru o torazareba, kaette sono toga o uku ;
Toki itatte okonawazareba, kaette sono wazawai o uku.
Not to take what Heaven gives is to incur Heaven's calamity; not to act when the moment comes is to incur Heaven's misfortune.
(Miura, Isshū and Ruth Fuller Sasaki, The Zen Koan. San Diego: Harvest/HBJ, 1965. 119. Print.)
Attachment to what is impermanent is not heaven, it is a cause of suffering. When what one is attached to ceases to exists, pain fills it's place. By minimizing the amount of attachment one has to the world (in all ways, not just attachment to a person) one lessens the amount of suffering one can experience.
From the Dhammapada:
From what's loved is born grief,
from what's loved is born fear.
For one freed from what's loved
there's no grief
— so how fear?
I've spoken with two people who fell completely in love with someone who died relatively shortly afterwards. Neither of them regretted the affair at all.
(Though the scenarios are different in one aspect; both died of accidents, not known illnesses.)
Marriage: For better or worse, in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part. We all live under a sentence of death and, in truth, none of knows how long we have. Modern society gives us more ability to categorize, label, "predict" (based on aggregate statistics, which may mean nothing for one individual life) and so on. But the relationship deal really hasn't changed, even though our excuses can be more elaborated upon.
After spending about 3 1/2 months bedridden, I was diagnosed in June 2001 with "atypical cystic fibrosis" and promptly informed "people like you don't get well". I have spent the last almost nine years defying doctors orders and getting well. I agree that "a cure" is the most logical pursuit -- but you will still be living under a sentence of death because none of us gets out of here alive. And it doesn't mean you can't also pursue a relationship. For me, I am currently alone and was fine with that for a time. I grow tired of it and I think my reasons for being alone will soon be resolved. In my case, a big part of it was that working a full time job, rebuilding my life after getting divorced in the midst of a serious health crisis, and getting well has taken all my time -- which isn't a very different story from some of the complaints on HN that launching a start-up leaves too little time to seriously pursue a relationship as well. For me, the time issue has been lack of hours in the day, not lack of (perceived) years left on my personal calendar.
And I can so identify with your conundrum that other people who have the same diagnosis are offended. I get that a lot, for a variety of reasons.
I think you have to get to a place where you realize that it is their decision to make. If you're honest about your condition, it's her choice to pursue a relationship with you, knowing the real possibilities.
That being said, such an impossible situation. I wish you the best my friend.
I agree. It's your responsibility to let her know, probably a few months into the relationship, and she can choose to stay or leave you. It's her choice. She might ask you why you didn't tell her earlier so that she wouldn't have been with you from the beginning... Just answer it honestly, you were being selfish and wanted the intimacy of a relationship; She might be angry, but that's okay. (IMO)
If you were a police officer or a fireman, would you not date because you might get injured on the job and you'd want to spare them the grief? See how ridiculous that sounds?
I enjoy relationships not for the length of time I'm with someone, but because they give me a zest for life, make me smile all day, and make me really look forward to exploring the world with someone I love.
I have friends with HIV/AIDS -- now THEY have a very hard time in the dating world. Consider yourself lucky :P
I don't see why it "isn't HN". I know I do, but I'm sure many of us obsess over our goals and our companies at the expense of relationships and often find ourselves in similar, albeit temporary situations, where we know any potential relationship is doomed to end (on less tragic terms) yet still desire a relationship anyway.
Back on topic, I would reconsider whether limiting a person's exposure to premature grief actually protects anyone. That may be the flaw you're looking for.
I expected that a few people would read and maybe I would get comment or two. This was a bit overwhelming. Thanks for all the replies -- lots of good points.
The perspective is selfish: nowhere does he ask "if I were to reveal my state of health, would the girl I'm dating care?"
Assuming the author falls in love, and the feeling is reciprocated, there are not one but two individuals that'll be involved in the decision to take it further. The author's trepidations aside, he /cannot/ know the willingness of the second party to pursue a relationship further, despite the high probability of cancer. After all, as of the status quo, that person does not yet "exist" in terms of the relationship.
As such, the level of suffering versus the level of emotional welfare that may or may not be elicited by the relationship is /entirely guesswork/. There is but the barest of frameworks to make an educated guess of it, and even that is open to many questions.
Overall, it is, in fact, in the author's benefit to pursue a happy, health, and - importantly - honest relationship. The potential drawbacks are impossible to know until such relationship is established, but the potential health benefits of being in a stable relationship /is/ known.
The way to think about this is that anyone can die unexpectedly at any time - even people who appear to be completely healthy. If you have an illness which is likely to end your life prematurely, this just gives you a degree of forewarning about your own mortality which most other people don't have access to.
I really think you're trying to be too rational about this. Romance rarely is. You're also prematurely making a decision for this hypothetical girl. Shouldn't she have a say too? As long as you're honest up-front about your condition, it's her choice as to whether or not she wants to pursue a relationship with you. Sure, your possible death would end up causing her a lot of pain, but she may judge that to be worth the potential for joy.
Regardless, best of luck to you. I hope treatment is found quickly. In the meantime, don't wait for that treatment: do what you think will make you happy. As long as you are honest and don't try to misrepresent your health, I don't see a moral issue.
There's a web comic I read that has tolkienian elves who are virtually immortal. Some of them prefer to date humans, because their (relatively) short lifespans mean the elves don't have enough time to fall out of love.
You've thought about this a lifetime, me, 20 seconds. That means my opinion is of little value to you.
But let me give you a 3rd option. A middle ground between never dating and putting Ms. X through the pain of your illness.
That middle ground is this. Go date. Go have that relationship. It will probably end on it's own in a few months, as most relationships do. In case it doesn't end on it's own, you have the fallback plan of ending it if you get sick. Just slip into asshole mode, when you get sick, and if she doesn't end it, then you end it. Tell her you want to see other people, etc. That will hurt her, of course, but so what? If she wasn't dating you, she'd be dating somebody else, who, statistically speaking, would also end the relationship, and would also cause her that breakup pain that we all feel more times than we would like to. So she's not getting more pain, just the same pain everybody else gets.
Once you make up your mind that you will proceed on that course of action, you can go ahead and enter a relationship with no worries. Nine times out of ten, all this soul searching will have been for not, because most relationships end, and they all end painfully. On that 10th time, you have a plan to avoid inflicting any extra pain, by making it look just like the other nine times.
If they almost all end painfully, why get into relationships at all? Because it's worth it. In almost all cases, the area under the joy curve is greater than the area under the pain curve.
I'd advise against "going into asshole mode". She'll notice the illogical change in behaviour and very likely put two and two together when she finds out you died of a known illness a short time later. She'll know you weren't really an asshole and just feel guilty because she couldn't be there to give comfort in the end, and a lifetime of "I should have seen the signs" et al.
How very PC of you. Meanwhile, you have somebody who is afraid to date, without laying out a whole big drama scene on his perspective girlfriend.
You would rather make every relationship this guy has (yes, there will be more than one) be an 'After School Special'. You get 15 karma points for validating his current viewpoint, which he's obviously not happy with and which is keeping him single. Cool. That seems worth it to me.
I disagree that this woman will "somehow find out and be scarred for life". I reject that it's better he stay single on the hypothetical theory that she might be scarred. I have a problem with PC bullshit, but that's just me.
I think Deestan was more suggesting that turning into an Asshole would not be the best way to handle such a situation (breaking up).
Im not certain but I am guessing that recurrence of the disease would not be something to happen over night. You could detach from a relationship perfectly well in a few weeks if you wanted without being an asshole :)
> That will hurt her, of course, but so what? If she wasn't dating you, she'd be dating somebody else, who, statistically speaking, would also end the relationship, and would also cause her that breakup pain that we all feel more times than we would like to. So she's not getting more pain, just the same pain everybody else gets.
No-one capable of that level of cynicism should be in a relationship with anyone.
Just FTR, it's not ok to hurt someone because someone else would probably hurt them if you didn't.
P.S. I have previously discussed my dating catch-22 with other people who had/have Chordoma; it was not pleasant. Most are deeply offended so I no longer bring it up with them. If someone from that world happens to read this post and is offended or saddened, I’m sorry. It’s not my intention.
What is there to be offended about? It's not the author's fault you're going to die.
It was a good article. When I think about it from an outsider's perspective, I totally agree with your argument. What you say is definitely the most rational possibility.
If I think about it from the perspective, "If I could have the girl of my dreams right now, would I turn her down because she's going to die in a year?", the answer is no. That's because it's irrational; I have never seen anyone close to me die, so I don't know what to expect. Might as well be blissfully ignorant, then be sad for a few days/weeks, then move on.
It was a good article. When I think about it from an outsider's perspective, I totally agree with your argument. What you say is definitely the most rational possibility.
If I think about it from the perspective, "If I could have the girl of my dreams right now, would I turn her down because she's going to die in a year?", the answer is no. That's because it's irrational; I have never seen anyone close to me die, so I don't know what to expect. Might as well be blissfully ignorant, then be sad for a few days/weeks, then move on.
When I mentioned this to a particularly entrepreneurial friend a while back, that was his first instinct. However, I think it just exacerbates problems. For one, it severely restricts the pool of people so that the probability of finding someone I genuinely am interested in is far less likely. Secondly, for me part of this whole paradigm is having a family -- kids. (I'm 26, btw.) Having two parents who got disease at a young age is not great for a variety of reasons.
If the Chordoma Foundation or someone else could yield a breakthrough in treatment -- a real possibility -- my whole situation changes. For me, possibly more than for most people, this makes my argument stronger. They've been in operation for three years and already a lot has been learned. (More than in the past 20 years!) Consequently, I think the equation reduces to me getting to the bad point in sickness within three-to-five years, or them getting successful before then.
(Ignoring the very high probability of recurrence, I am perfectly healthy and have been since my surgery five years ago. Considering the median time to recurrence is 9-12 months and median survival time is 6 years, I am in a favorable and lucky bracket.)
Every beginning is an ending and every ending is a beginning. Every time you gain something, you set yourself up for pain when you lose it. Every time you lose something, you've made more room in your life for a new blessing to come. Life is an ebb and flow of pain, pleasure, suffering, ease, gain and loss. Fighting necessary suffering of life only amplifies the suffering. My advice is that if you want companionship, then pursue it. As long as you are open and honest with your would-be lover it should work.
It is apparent that you are not afraid of rejection and know how to put yourself out there to women... so you have gotten farther than my healthy ass. I would advise that, whatever you decide, teach other people how to find love and how to "play the games". I would love to learn some of that.
Can't really comment on the moral side of things, but from a practical perspective: surely there must be women out there in the same (tragic) situation? Have you looked for a "dating for the terminally ill" website or local group?
At the very least, selecting from people who accepts cryonics would give chasingsparks a dating pool likely to be rationally more accepting of the inevitable.
Living life with someone you love causes them pain. It also causes them joy. This is true whether you expect to die soon or live to be a hundred. So go out and live joyfully, and take what comes. If you fall in love, embrace that!
"Protecting" her from loss comes at the great cost of all of the joy the two of you would otherwise share. I've had a few friends who've lost a spouse to cancer or other tragedies when they were young, and they all seemed to view the time they were married as a net positive, even accounting for the loss at the end. YMMV.