Je pense, donc je suis ?
The topic of Open Relationships is delightfully complex and I've always found it a fascinating, if not somewhat disturbing one, for it seems to bring two of my most fundamental desires into conflict. But when I got confronted with the topic not once but 5 times these past few days, I felt I had to devote at least 1 blogpost to it.
People seem to find it easiest to talk about biological imprints: they seem fixed, require little justification and we all feel the effects of them. Research suggests that the substances in our brains that are responsible for passion & butterflies, only get produced by our body for a period of 3-4 years & then generally disappear, whether we like it or not. This is our biological imprint. From an evolutionary perspective it might be explained by the fact that on average, 3-4 years of commitment suffices to raise a human child beyond its most fragile phases. After this period, the benefits of the relationship no longer outweigh the biological advantages of reproducing with as many partners as possible, and the individuals should/could move on to the next partner. In light of this, serial monogamy most closesly fits our biological inheritance.
I find it much harder to speculate about the psychological aspects of this topic: our "concious self" seems to have progressed on a more rapid timescale than our biology has. We assume we are capable of conquering our own basic drives, urges & instincts. Although some of these, like sleeping & feeding, are a necessity to indulge, quite a few others have become less primal due to changes in our environment and we assume we ought to be able to control those. Or as Descartes put it: "Je pense, donc je suis". If you merely follow instincts, you simply exist. Think about yourself, and you become an individual that "is". (sounds simple dunnit ;-))
In a bizarre twist of faith (if not fate ;-)), western society in the form of the Church, instated an external structure that "enabled" humans to "free" themselves from their instinctive urges. The last few decades those societal restrictions have started to crumble down and our biological patterns start to resurface more freely. Dealing with them is now grossly up to the individual.
What fascinates me is the different ways in which individuals give new meaning to this all. There's people who function brilliantly in "open" relationships, others seem perfectly capable of living in a monogamous setting, and many more live in the myriad of alternatives in between. I supose it comes down to figuring out for one's self how one can or wants to deal with these givens, and then hope to meet someone that does similarly so. Many couples of our generation seem to come together without really knowing where they each stand, under the deemed free spirit of "we'll see what happens", which makes it pretty damn hard once the 3 year hormonal time bomb runs out. Some manage to thrift past this on a current of habbit. Others split up for need of more passion. Still others start putting in hard work to deal with those new changes and find a new balance between them. Some people simply don't live their lives that consciously & let circumstances decide.
It's something I'm only just starting to figure out for myself as I have clearly gotten it wrong in my previous relationships. Opinions I've voiced before were only mere guesses and there's a possibility my current opinions may one day metamorph in yet others. But right now, the 2 biggest conflicting "wants" in my life are the one for stability & safety on the one hand, and the one for change, passion & adventure on the other hand. I'm pretty certain serial monogamy would make me miserable. And I'm fairly convinced an entirely open relationship is something I just cannot handle. But the mistake I, like many others no doubt, made and make still, is to expect a relationship to take care of both. If what you're looking for is a long term relationship, perhaps it makes more sense to expect a relationship to take care of the stability & safety aspect (no mean feat by itself!) once the hormonal source runs dry, and expect yourself to organise the rest of your life to fulfill the need for change, passion & adventure in other ways beyond that point. I think it's the latter that poses the greatest challenge. I shall duly report on the successes in my next attempt at a relationship ;-)
posted by Dr.Pew @ 4:01 pm
6 comments
6 Comments:
However frightening the idea, fact is that those animals who stay together for life have the smallest mass of brain, and males can procreate longer than women. If Church or any other moralising institution would not exist, would mankind be more at ease with the fact that men are not made to pair up for life?
Serial monogamy has been condemned by Western society for no other reasons than to enable such moralising institutions to fully control it's members and produce enough guilt to create a modern vassal state.
We might be the most technical and technological advanced culture today, when it comes to the 'real stuff', our behaviour and attitude towards relationships, we are pretty much in the middle-ages, no matter the amount of literature produced about the subject over the last few decades.
The absolute need for some kind of minimal social network has a devastating influence on the pure individual non sexual needs of the human being.
It is obvious that by definition there is no society of hermits. As soon as there would be, they would no longer be.
So, we all 'need' something from the other. Whether it is emotional things such as warmth, passion, togetherness, sharing, intercourse or just company; or more rational things like ideas, points of view, quarrels or fights, a good discussion or exchange of knowledge. Our interdependency is so huge, that we think we have to protect it by catching the right partner as soon as possible and stick with him or her for life in order not to loose those acquired fulfilments of our individual needs.
Open relationships therefore are proof of uncertainty about finding the fulfilment of our individual needs in the one person we like TODAY.
Relationships that fail are the result of lack of fulfilment and they should fail, unless we want to deceive ourselves.
So... Relationships that work, are those that are - for the time of their existence - fulfilling the needs of both partners knowing that this might end at any time, for any reason, but mostly because a new individual steps in who has something more, different or interesting to offer.
When this new individual is considered to be fulfilling the needs of the other partner more or better - and visa-versa- there is enough ground for the old relationship to be resolved and space should be given to the refreshing revival of the new.
We stick with the old out of insecurity of what might become of us if we open up to the new.
We change for the new, because we know the old has no future.
Stability and safety are individual things to strive for, and not within a relationship. It is too much burden upon it, absolutely unproductive and time consuming, and pulling away the focus of what a relationship should be.
Oh well, whatever... Love. R
You said: "Stability and safety are individual things to strive for, and not within a relationship. It is too much burden upon it, absolutely unproductive and time consuming, and pulling away the focus of what a relationship should be."
Now there's the question then dad... what SHOULD a relationship be? :-) If you say safety & security pulls away the focus of what should be, then there must be some form to define what "should" be. Enlighten your eldest...
I know relationships should just flow, but I happen to be cerebrally cursed ;-)
As for the new individual stepping in, you're absolutely right there. I know my relationships broke up with good reason. And that if it had been strong/right/good enough, a new individual would have made little difference. It did also, like u say, force me to take that step towards the "insecurity" of whatever new might happen, because I probably wouldn't have dared take that step on my own account.
However, I am simply trying to figure out what, then, is enough to say "this is a relationship that does work"?
Of course, it simply has to feel right, but my point is just that when the initial feelings of mad passion&butterflies are no longer there, despite there then being a lot of genuine love for each other, it is easy for your mind to lead you to believe that everything else is wrong too. What I see in myself and in a lot of friend's relationships, is that the unease is there, merely cuz their lives have started to evolve so much around each other that when the butterfly-stages are gone, they have very little left in their own lives to mirror their happiness or unhappiness about their relationships on, and it becomes a tough judgement call. Could the relationship be OK, but the attitude of the individuals towards keeping the spark in their own individual lives, too lazy?
I'm just convinced that if you have a very close, loving, fun and secure bond between two people, who also manage to keep the rest of their lives exciting and interesting for themselves, they will stay interesting for each other longer. So when the butterflies go, it won't necessarily raise as many doubts as it does in a couple that seems to be in a total rut in their individual lives...
OR... is the very first moment you feel or think: "damn, maybe this relationship isn't entirely right for me"... is that the first and only clue you should listen to and not give it any further thought? Cuz that would make the criteria very easy?
What about fun?
As with the parachute jumper who thinks but about the safe landing and forgets to experience the thrill of the jump, the lightness of air, the sunshine in his face, the wind in his hair and the mere fact of flying.
Compared to his partner, who jumped right behind him, and enjoys every second of the jump, not distracted by a projection of what he thinks is to be a safe landing.
Some people feel insecure when they don't have a precise idea of what the future in a relationship will bring. Mostly they feel insecure because they do not know what they will become once they are without a partner.
Relationships that exist to mainly provide a solution to one (or both) of the partners' feeling of insecurity create a to important interdependency and often end up in one partner feeling mentally suffocated by the other.
A relationship that does work is not a static ongoing momentum incorporating guarantees and securities to protect the partners. It is a dynamic and intense roller-coaster like experience with ever changing speeds, directions, movements and shaky moments. It puts to the test the individual partner first, the partnership next. The more flexible and non expecting the individual is towards the ever changing dynamics of the relationship, the longer it can last. But then again, it does not last uninterrupted.
When the initial feelings of mad passion and butterflies are no longer there, or don't come back frequently enough in a very spontaneous way, the kind of love partners have for each other is of a different kind.
It is more about mutual understanding, respect, being there for the other, feeling relaxed because of the mere existence of a partnership. And unless both parties feel comfortable with it, the relationship will eventually die the moment one of the partners experiences new initial feelings of mad passion and butterflies towards someone new or feels bored because of the emotional and physical impoverishment of the initial fulfilling relationship.
As said before, the balance in any relationship is the result of balance in the lives of it's components.
And if a relationship starts with doubts, it will end with even more.
I wonder if a dayfly - supposed it was burdened with human intelligence - would have the same problems about relationships?
LOL, I don't think "fun" has ever been an issue. But need for securities and garantuees that don't exist... fair enough. You hit my weak spot :-)
I'm off now... to hunt for the "off-switch" on my brain ;-) xx
I think there are relationships that last longer than 3 to 4 years without any additional effort. The problem is that you won't find out if your relationship survives that after you've reached that point. But I do believe it's possible to go for serial monogamy. As well as an open relationship, as long as both are willing to and do have the same feelings about it. But in the end you have to find what is right for you, what feels natural and "at home" for you. You seem to feel like your on the fence, Sarah, but are you really? And aren't there different types of open relationships? Could something "in-between" be what feels best for you? Just speculating... Maybe it doesn't have to be a binary question.
I find that most things that Roel wrote make a lot of sense and thus are true, but I don't think it's a 100% rule. We are all very different. But I agree, for a relationship to last, both partners must have all that the other desires/needs. When that doesn't happen or those difficulties are not worked out (and sometimes some can't be worked out at all - that option does not exist by the nature of the difficulty) things won't last. And the minute someone new appears that fits all the requirements, the previous relationship stops making sense. Then the decision is about pursuing happiness but abandoning stability or just staying where you are. I don't think the last option is a good one. Nor being aware that you are together just for stability's sake and keep it that way.
I'm still young, in spite of my 27 years of age, but even if the proccess Roel mentions happens quite often, again, as I said before, I don't think it has to be a never-ending cycle in your life. It would be interesting to listen to (sincere) opinions of older people, just like Roel and see which are the differences and if they vary. Because they may.
I know where the question "you seem to feel you're on the fence Sarah, but are you really?" comes from. And I was annoyed by the question because you hit bulls-eye with it. But I guess that's your perogative as an ex-gf Rita...the fact that you kinda know how I function in situations like this :-)
Anyway... I'm not on the fence. I admit. I have some very strong opinions about what does and does not make me feel right what concerns the type of the relationship, although I have been going through quite a process of re-establishing where I stand on this issue the past few years.
As for serial monogany... it does make most sense, even to me. BUT, what has always scared me about this idea is that relationships are such a key feature in someone's life. Their ability to knock u down or lift you up can be so mesmerisingly huge. For someone who struggles to let go of comfort zones, the aspect of a rollercoaster of relationships throughout life, at the off chance that one of them might actually "stick"... is a terrifying concept.
But I realise that the only chance in happiness lies in just going with the flow. Going where you feel happiest. Excepting change, and just happily re-adjusting. Because by going for stability, I have now found myself staying in situations where really I am not very happy, just for the sake of stability and the fear of losing it. And ultimately the stability breaks down anyway. And all you've left then is a very bizarre askew type of hurt and confusion. Howcome everyone always seems so much more streetwise than me on this topic? It puzzles me.
Post a Comment
<< Home