This is a personal blog. All opinions expressed are my own personal opinions, not those of my employer.
Relationships...
Wed, 05/04/2006 - 22:03 — zhasper
Over the last few weeks, a topic that has come up in conversation several times with several different people in different contexts has been relationships; specifically, why I don't believe in (or understand) monogamy.
In order to explore my own beliefs (they're by no means fixed; and I don't know that I fully understand them myself) I want to start a conversation here about them. You should hopefully see some contributions from a pseudonymous guest blogger (or commentor, at least) shortly...
I don't expect anything I say here to neccessarily be correct; this will be a work in progress, and it's likely that my beliefs may change over time; or, in exploring my beliefs, I may find inconsistencies or errors which need to be corrected.
To kick things off, I'd like to outline my threetwo guiding axioms.
* I accept other people and situations as I find them.
* I am a whole, complete being, needing no-one else to fulfill me.
Everything I understand/believe/feel about relationships stems from these tenets.
For instance, the most common place this has come up is in the context of what I'd do if my significant other slept with someone else. My response is - not much. They are certain circumstances that could cause me to see this as a problem - to take an extreme example, if I'd taken a day off work and travelled for three hours to meet my partner somewhere, but they didn't show up because they had decided to shag someone else instead but hadn't told me, then I'd care. However, the issue here wouldn't be that they'd slept with someone else - it would be that they'd been inconsiderate and severely disconvenienced me by not giving me notice.
However, I would accept my partner as they are, including the fact that they slept with someone else or that they showed little respect for my time. I may, or may not, choose to continue, discontinue, or attempt to alter the relationship at this point - but regardless of the choice I make, I will continue to accept the other person as they are.
Incidentally, if you don't want to have to put up with all the other guff I write here, you can choose to see only the posts on this topic, or for a more automated way of achieving the same thing, add the RSS feed of just these posts to your aggregator of choice.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Trackback URL for this post:
http://zhasper.com/trackback/206
Comments
Response!
Can I point out that your three guiding axioms are, in fact, distinctly missing an axiom there...
And are they in fact axiomatic? Or are they yourself as you'd like to be...? Surely there wouldn't be any stuffing of paper in people's mouths is you tacitly accepted them for who they are haha... Or am I drawing on an extreme situation here? :)
Well I don't concur with you on the subject of monogamy... It doesn't follow for me that an independent being is by any means sacrificing their independence by committing to one person, unless he chooses to. But I'd be interested in hearing you expound your thoughts further...
I've fixed the number.. the
I've fixed the number.. the rest will have to wait :)
--
There is nothing as despicable as a man who quotes himself. -- Zhasper, 2005
Thoughts
Hello,
As you know I disagree with you on most of this, even with re: to your Axioms.
Here's some notes on the main areas of conflict, I'm in a bit of a rush but may add some more over time:
1) Firstly - are these Axioms what you hope to achieve, or what you currently really have obtained? I'm not really sure what an Axiom is so its definition might answer this in itself :)
In any case I honestly don't believe that either are true for you at this moment as far as I know you - neither that you completely accept people or situations as they are nor that you are complete by yourself. However, I don't believe it is natural or right for either of these to be true though, so I don't think this is a negative fact. I just wanted to clarify that these are not you...at least not yet :)
2) Secondly as noted above I have opposite "guiding axioms", and that I actually believe are universally true:
* While you can accept people and situations, and committ to them "as they are", there is such thing as a "better" situation and a "better" character that a person can have. It is fine to expect, encourage and strive to these "better" versions of both people you are in relationship with and situations you are a part of. I'm not saying you should wait until someone is perfect to love them, just that it is good and right to communicate how you would like someone to be whilst loving them. For example, you accept that your baby can't talk when born, but you know it would be better for them to be able to talk ultimately, and will encourage/train/invest time getting them there. You would not passively leave them as they are. In a more drastic example, I would commend fighting in a situation where there is evil or injustice to change that situation. It's hard to explain - I believe in unconditional love, but also in universal right and wrong. To love someone is to do what is universally right by them. I guess another example might be yourself - I accept you and love you as a brother, but I call some of your lifestyle wrong and will not condone it. I will not stop encouraging you otherwise, however this does not mean I will not love or accept you.
* I believe you need people, and more importantly, God. You will not be complete propperly without both - you are not complete or whole without relationships. I am confident in this both by analysing how I feel and live, and seeing the patterns others take. I don't think you should "need" a person to make you become valuable, however I believe you do "need" God, and as a valuable person you are designed to be in relationship. By yourself you are not complete. With God but no person, you can be complete and have value, but it is not "good". So in that sense you are needy of both in different ways.
Regarding your example and what you spoke to me earlier, I would like to summarise my understanding of your belief as follows (if this is incorrect, correct it, I use assumptions in my additional comments):
*You believe that when you are in a relationship, at any given time, someone who would give your partner more pleasure/happiness at that given time, should replace you without ramification. This is because you would want the ultimate pleasure/happiness for someone you love.
* You believe that sex and other lesser intimacy is not sacred, necessarily-meaningful or impacting.
* You hold a utilitarian view that pleasure = good and pain = bad. Where there is a conflict, simple addition and subjective valuation can determine whether something is good or bad. E.g. big pleasure - little pain = good still.
* You believe that an agreed good and bad value system between two people is correct and viable, and not accountable to a higher system outside that relationship.
I have these suggestions preliminarily. I have to go otherwise I might have more:
* In a relationship, overall pleasure/happiness overrides pleasure/happiness at a given time. Trust, committment and other virtues grow over time and often will require rough times to come into fruition. I guess it comes down to the depth relationship that you hope for. If everyone was on a temporary level, happy to quit at anytime, it would make sense to test the value of the relationship based on a moment and it's history. However, I believe you also have to take into consideration the future. You said something along the lines of you would be happy to give up your boyfriend if he found someone who made him happier. But I would say in a relationship where there is committment, your boyfriend would have decided to ignore that possibility and stick it out with you for the golden time that would eventuate, including trust, reliability and genuine caring. To me it is important to hold someone knowing that they will be there forever irregardless of my failings (including future ones), then to be happy with that moment and have no certainty that tomorrow I'd be a nasty and loose them forever to someone more mellow that day. I hope that makes sense, I've exaggerated a bit to make the point clearer.
* I am a virgin so can only go off extrapolated information here, and what people have told me. Sex is sacred. For it to be good and propper you must give a lot of yourself to it and the person...either it's meaningless and damaging to you, or it's committed and trusting. I don't believe it is just an act, but a process, a reward and a privilege. Used as just a detatched act it is a perversion of its potential and purpose. Like using pearls for pavement that a pig might walk on :)
* Utilitarianism has been discredited before. You are smart enough to find faults in this. I would love for you to carefully confirm your system of right and wrong as it will probably impact this discussion a lot.
Axiom #2
I am a whole, complete being, needing no-one else to fulfill me.
Curious.....basically everything I've read on social relationships views them as essential to human fulfillment, either at or just below the level of eating and sleeping. People need people in order to feel like people.
You disagree? Or is there a nuance I'm missing?
Curious.....basically
Curious.....basically everything I've read on social relationships
<bitch>
Read? You've never experienced one? Try getting out more!
</bitch>
Seriously though, I don't disagree at all, and there's no nuance you missed.. I just didn't fully explain myself.
People definitely need people; I've had times in my life when I didn't have people, and they were grey and flat and miserable...
I still can't think of the perfect words right now.. roughly, what I'm trying to say is that although relationships are neccessary for a complete life, no particular person is neccessary.
There are some people who are better than others - I can think of a few friends who are very important to me, that I'd really rather not be without. However, if the relationship with those people did end, that wouldn't be the end of my existence as a person. It may leave me at a loose end, but that just gives me more time/energy to go meet new people.
Does this make more sense?
--
There is nothing as despicable as a man who quotes himself. -- Zhasper, 2005
I think I understand. Since
I think I understand. Since these posts were brought up in response to your skepticism about monogamy, perhaps you're trying to say that you don't feel the need to pursue that other trapping of the traditional love-union: a lifelong commitment?
If so, I'd like a shot at trying to explain why some people may sincerely believe that commitment for life is the best option for them, and how their decision to be monogamous helps them with that goal - assuming I've understood you correctly of course.
Avoiding commitment?
I hadn't thought of it that way, but that does sound right..
It's not that I'm averse to commitment - I do believe that any worthwhile meaningful relationship (whether it's with your employer/employees, friends, customers, suppliers) requires commitment.
But.. lifetime? That's a very long time. My needs and wants change as I grow older - making that kind of commitment wouldn't make sense right now, I don't think.
I think it's more honest for me to only commit to a relationship for as long as both parties feel that the relationship is the right thing for them. If that happens to end up being a lifetime, that's fantastic.
I have seen some great relationships that have stood the test of time - two of my three sets of grandparents, my parents and Mal and Kerin are some examples that spring to mind. I'd love to have a relationship as strong and dynamic and nurturing as these in my own life - but the odds of any particular relationship being that kind of relationship seem incredibly remote.
I think you've understood me - so please, go ahead :) Mal, if you're reading I'd love to hear anything you have to say as well.
--
There is nothing as despicable as a man who quotes himself. -- Zhasper, 2005
"You and me for LIFE, baby"
Okay. I'll try to be succinct, but I make no promises.
Let's go to axiom #3: "Change is inevitable". I think that's accurate but incomplete: some change can be directed and controlled. Some change, though not happening on a conscious level, can be influenced by a person's conscious decisions.
I think the idea of deliberately and explicitly committing to someone for as long as you can (and you can't get much longer than a lifetime, relationship-wise) is a way to put the idea in the minds of the people involved that they're going to seek to change and grow in such a way that they grow together rather than apart. They voluntarily seek to sacrifice life options that might reward them as an individual, but which might threaten the existence and growth of their relationship together.
Sexual fidelity is a way of reducing the potential threat to the relationship from weaknesses like jealousy, insecurity, a temptation to run off with someone else. These can all be addressed without the need for monogamy, and the level and type of weakness varies from individual to individual, but nobody's eliminated their own weaknesses completely, and monogamy is generally a very effective means of addressing their existence.
Being monogamous in a union intended to last a lifetime is a way to maximise the union's chance of success.
That this is a good thing pre-supposes that the people involved would find a lifetime together even bearable, let alone rewarding. Also, I don't think lifetime commitment, or monogamy, are necessarily the best options in every particular case. But I think it's ultimately the relationship that I want, even though I don't believe I'm ready just yet to make a lifetime commitment to anyone.
I'm feeling very tired, so I hope this makes some kind of coherent sense.
I guess that's the core issue...
I agree with everything you've written. Your summary of the benefits of lifelong committment is succint and pertinent, and your summary of monogamy matches the only valid reasons I can think of for seeking monogamy[1]
That this is a good thing pre-supposes that the people involved would find a lifetime together even bearable, let alone rewarding.
That, I think, is the core of why I don't feel I could make a lifetime commitment at this point. There are a lot of things I'd like to do in my life, and I'd like to be free to do them at whim, without being held back by another person's whims.
[1] There are plenty of reasons that people often cite which boil down to jealousy and possessiveness. I don't like any of these reasons; they all seem childish and unhealthy to me.
Post new comment