Is it just “having one’s needs met”, or is there more to Love and being in an intimate relationship? If you just care about having someone to have sex with or who will clean, does that mean it will work and is a relationship that should last? What about those who have a set of requirements, or guidelines, if you prefer? Does someone fitting your "ideal" really mean everlasting joy? Is it just “a cute ass, nice hair, good in bed, a great cook, well read, and financially stable"? Is that really the recipe for Love? I don’t think so; I think so many people are unhappy precisely because they think a monogamous relationship with a person that fills out the requisites for a personal ad should be bliss. Furthermore, I think that so many of these couples end up splitting because they are not really compatible, they literally cannot be. They don’t know how to have a truly adult relationship, one that is based on commonalities as well as differences, one that accounts for reality and "human nature". How can they, when society at large doesn't know? When people are still excluded and persecuted instead of being understood and accepted? How can any of us know how to have healthy relationships, when our parents didn't know-or even prepare us by admitting their ignorance to us? If we don't know ourselves, what we want and need, then there is no use to have others in our life. People change, lives shift focus, people grow and outgrow, and expecting to “stay together forever” may not be entirely realistic or honest. I say this because so many seem to forget that they are not (or should not be) the same person they were at 18, or at 30, years old. In the intervening time, things adjust to the world; experience shapes who we become and what we want. Expecting that two people will keep the same level of interest and desire for each other through even the modern "ideal" of marriage is naive.
The very basis of "marriage" is stagnation, the idea being that each puts their life in the hands of the other "for better or worse." This is not freedom, but rather mutual reassurance. It is a bargain that each will stick with the other so neither need to worry about being alone. There is no room for growth, for acceptance of an ever-evolving "other-half", so there can be no real "together". Half of marriages in the U.S. end in two people unhappy with each other and not able to be together. Even more are the uncounted number of intimate, committed relationships that take place outside of that section of the populace which chooses (or is allowed) to marry. These 'renegade' relationships face equal turbulence and more break-ups, yet are not counted because of their "non-sanctioned" or accepted "temporary" status. They remain outside of statistics and study of marriage, I think, because the numbers and findings would be so much larger and it would be uncomfortable to admit what it might mean.
The very basis of "marriage" is stagnation, the idea being that each puts their life in the hands of the other "for better or worse." This is not freedom, but rather mutual reassurance. It is a bargain that each will stick with the other so neither need to worry about being alone. There is no room for growth, for acceptance of an ever-evolving "other-half", so there can be no real "together". Half of marriages in the U.S. end in two people unhappy with each other and not able to be together. Even more are the uncounted number of intimate, committed relationships that take place outside of that section of the populace which chooses (or is allowed) to marry. These 'renegade' relationships face equal turbulence and more break-ups, yet are not counted because of their "non-sanctioned" or accepted "temporary" status. They remain outside of statistics and study of marriage, I think, because the numbers and findings would be so much larger and it would be uncomfortable to admit what it might mean.
Posts
