Why feel possessive when you don't want to possess?

"Based on a thousand true stories"

Disclaimer : For the sake of narration, characters are assigned specific genders but the analysis equally holds good even if the genders are reversed.

A (Husband) and B (Wife) are in a married relation for quite some time. With time, pressures of running a family and changes in priorities have put the relationship aspect of the marriage to back seat. Though there are no pressing problems, the excitement of leading a life with a partner has also diminished and it has reached some sort of status quo, a socially, financially secured relationship. But emotionally?

C (Male) befriends B but soon the lost (or diminished) emotions in the marriage starts to resurface for B. C also starts feeling similar emotions but before it turns into an extra marital affair, the obvious question of feasibility starts to bother B and C. They discuss and dismiss any possibility of pursuing because B is obviously not having a troubled marriage and C is also not wanting/comfortable to be a part of breaking up a “functional” marriage. So they just decide to remain friends and B strongly wishes (also partly to be free from guilt) that C should find a new partner. C also agrees and carries on with life hoping all is well. But whenever B sees C talking to any woman, a strong surge of possessiveness and a uncomfortable feeling starts to affect her. C understands it is natural thing to happen but also hopes it will subside with time. Unfortunately it shows no signs of diminishing and this starts to affect C. Any amount of talking between B and C did not help much. When C shares this story to me, the logical me points out that if at all anyone is justified in having the feeling of possessiveness, it has to be C and not B for obvious reasons that B is living with a man day in and day out but C is alone most of the time. When C talks this out with B, she dismisses it by saying since she is already married, C has no reason to feel possessive but she can since C is looking out for a new person. It did not make any sense to me and stopped thinking about it by concluding that when emotions are high, reason takes a back seat.

Now, what actually happens in the story later is irrelevant to this blog post but however one question lingered in me - " Why was she feeling possessive when she actually doesn't want to possess C?" After many days a thought struck which probably might throw some light on the above situation.

First let us get the facts cleared
1) B is actually very sure that she doesn't want to leave A for C
2) B is actually feeling very possessive whenever C is with another woman

So I think my question, " Why feel possessive when you don't want to possess? " is quite valid. So here goes my thoughts.

Both the facts (1 and 2) are true at the same time and there is no paradox though it might appear as if there is. The crux here is both 1 and 2 are standing on 2 separate sets of parameters. 1 is true because marriage gives social and financial security and it is a comfort which many doesn't want to give up. I don't think there is any wrong in such a decision(**). It's just that one should be aware of the reasons why he/she is in marriage. Now 2 is also true because B is emotionally attached to C and it's natural to have the feelings of possessiveness. So the reason why that question remained in me for long is that I thought both the facts 1 and 2 are emotional in nature but I now realize it is  clearly not. In a nutshell, this is a conflict between reason and emotions. Unfortunately for many decisions we take, reasons and emotions do not support each other.. So one should carefully segregate what decisions should be taken based on emotions and what decisions should be based on reasons.. It's easy to say that a career choice should be purely based on reason but choosing a life partner should be emotional in nature. But is it really that easy? Are people really segregating what decisions should be logic based and what is emotion based? When people claim why they have taken a particular decision, are they aware why they have actually taken or just take because the majority society expects that? It's not a rule that ppl should segregate but are they happy and contended with whatever the choices they have made? In fact it seems like marriage itself is segregated between reason and emotions called arranged and love marriage respectively. Anyways I am no one to answer these questions in a generalized sense and it's best when ppl answer for themselves.

** I would like to highlight one point in this context. When I make my arguments in this fashion to people in general, I am repeatedly accused of taking a condescending tone. So it got me thinking - "Do I feel whether one type of a stance is more superior than the other?" , "Do I feel people who base relationships on pure emotions than reasons or conveniences are superior?", "Do I really mean that there is no wrong when a marriage is based on social comforts?"... The answer is Yes and NO.  I actually feel it's NO wrong or there is NO superiority - inferiority feeling when people are aware of their reasons and stick to it. The problem comes when there is hypocrisy. Many base their decisions on one set of parameters and claim that it is because of some other set of parameters (Probably because of romantic movies and books' influence) That is only when I feel there is dignity in acknowledging the exact reasons behind a particular decision and no dignity otherwise. Finally, when I re looked at my arguments, never I noticed taking an explicit condescending tone. Then why was I accused? Was it because the accusers themselves feel a superiority - inferiority dichotomy? Looks like a possibility but I can never be sure.

Whose prediction will come true in this T20 game called “Human life on earth”?

Prediction A- 

In the light of recent Chennai floods, the Newspapers were flooded with articles titled “Chennai floods are an ecological wake up call ”, “ಚೆನ್ನೈ ಜಲ ಪ್ರಳಯ ಮಾನವ ನಿರ್ಮಿತ ” etc etc. So there is a large set of people who claims that we are on a decline and current state state of affairs is unsustainable -  be it burning of fossils leading to global warming, excessive urbanization , materialism, unhealthy dietary habits and so on and so forth. Therefore if the current trends are not stopped or reversed, humanity will cease to survive on this planet. And the solution they propose is to have more and more sustainable practices. Replace urban life with rural life, farming with industries, natural remedies(Eg:Ayurveda) with Allopathy. In a nutshell, go back in time and live a life that existed 300yrs go (before industrial revolution) and with that humanity will live for a long long time.
My own take here is that I don't refute any of the above claims or even the proposed solution. But I highly doubt the feasibility of the proposed solution. I feel we have crossed the point of no return and it's quite impossible to recreate the life humanity lived 300 yrs ago even though a handful of people are choosing sustainable ways of living and hoping it creates a worldwide change.

Prediction B-

On the other hand, there is a large set of people who are very optimists about the chances of humanity surviving on this planet. They highlight things like – Exponential technological growth (Moore's law), raising standards of living due to economic growth, increase in average life span, increased access to education and health, technological solution to health care and replacement of fossil fuels by clean energy, artificial intelligence etc etc etc. So the solution they propose to the man made problems like global warming and other things mentioned above is to further accelerate the technological growth so that we can fix the problems (created by us). Again, I don't refute any of the above claims but I highly doubt the feasibility of the solution. Whether the accelerated technological growth keep creating problems at a pace, which the pace at which solutions are created fail to catch up?

To evaluate which of the predictions might actually come true, is a hard enough job and it might not yield any conclusive result. Only time can tell whether we will actually go back and live a life similar to that existed 300 yrs back or technological growth solves the looming problems or we all reach “The End”.

Why call a T20 game?

"Human life on Earth" has been a test match till now. A slow and steady game and thereby establishing a pattern. But I feel the nature of the game has changed to a T20 format(a very short format) because a few major serendipitous technological discovery might greatly influence future in a way that the current problems might cease to challenge our existence and similarly if the climatic changes becomes so acute in short span, we might lose control which can lead to total annihilation. So in such a format, luck and random factors play a very important role that predictions cannot be done with great accuracy. It's almost impossible for Zimbabwe to defeat Australia in a test match whereas it's possibility increases when it comes to a T20 match. So whether we end up surviving or not, we will never come to know whose arguments were closer to reality as far as the present is concerned.