Considering that I have a sex blog and considering my lifestyle a lot of people ask me about my perspective on relationships. By this, meaning boyfriend/girlfriend, and then we get married. That needs to be defined because really, we are all in a relationship to everything. My relationship to the sun is at x degrees and y miles. I have a relationship to all of you who I've never met before. And every relationship is different. All of your friends, family, lovers, were any of the relationships the same? And if a "relationship" that people are usually talking about, bf/gf/marriage, is really just really close friendship that you have sex and spend a lot of time together... well then, why can't you just be friends who have sex and spend time together? What does the label mean? When there are such things as open marriages you can't tell me that everyone means the same thing by marriage. If there's all this variation, just because you give it the label is it any different then when it doesn't have the label?
I don't know. The labels have never made sense to me. My perspective on relationships, you could say is organic. Let them go where they will, they'll naturally grow and change as life does, or die off, where they're meant to. Every relationship is different, the distinct mix of personalities, where people are in their lives, external circumstances... life has a way of working itself out naturally, the relationship will settle into what suits right. When two people like each other, enjoy spending time together, then they'll make time to spend together. Time will tell how meaningful that relationship becomes. When it's not so worth it to them, then the relationship wanes with it. The problem seems to come about when people try to force a relationship to be what it isn't, script it out, force it into an idealized label, or try to hold on to a relationship that used to be though it's necessarily changed over time.
The labels aren't so important to me. For me it is enough to say they're all friends, each one special and unique in it's own way. How meaningful that relationship is over time is the point I think, not the labels.
So now if we strip off the labels and they're all friends, can we only have one? So far as I know, love is not exclusive. Loving one person doesn't mean that you'll love another less or that you can't love anyone else. That makes absolutely no sense! Honestly, monogamy does not seem natural to me. Does anyone really practice monogamy? How many people do you know who married their childhood sweethearts, never with anyone else and will probably never separate? It is more the exception than the rule, don'tcha think? Social scientists call what most people practice serial monogamy. But when most marriages don't seem to last 5 years, what does that mean? So if I swear I'll only go out with you this week, and only one guy next week, can I still call myself monogamous? Well I rarely sleep with more than one guy at a time so I guess that makes me monogamous too.
I've done a little reading up on this, monogamy and marriage as has been idealized and crammed down our throats...? Is actually more of a mythical creation than anything that's existed throughout human history. (** couple references mentioned below)
Now I have a simple motto for relationships I live by: I love all my friends, some friends are lovers, all lovers are friends.
It's an interesting side note on how I got to where I am that I should also mention. First was that I was never going to be a marrying gal. For as long as I have known, since a wee little girl, that was not what I wanted. I never really got into dating or boyfriends. From the beginning I've always slept with guys who were my friends, and of course the occasional tryst. Friends who like to hang out and sometimes have sex. By the time I was an adult I was sure I did not want to be in a monogamous relationship.
I'm not going to say that there's no "Mr. Right" out there for me, just that if there is such a thing he'd have to be my kind of Mr. Right. Meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath.
I've gone about it from all angles, I've done the long term, thinking maybe he'd see the light. Mr. Right in just about every way... but not that way. Miserable failure. Tried dating guys with the promise of not getting too serious, open relationships only. Great guys but that didn't work either, they'd always want commitments, give it about 2 months. Tried meeting guys on the premise of polygamous relationships. Found out there are way too many ideas of how that would work but mostly that starting on that premise didn't work very well, there was never any personal chemistry to it or they weren't good looking or whatever.
Meanwhile I found some other things I have a lot of fun doing that led me off on a tangent, which if you've read my other blog you can figure it out. At first I dabbled but then at some point it's not dabbling anymore. There came a point when I had to take an honest look at myself and what I had been doing. I found I was ok with that and didn't bother hiding it so much. Funny thing is, once I did that and that's the "who I am" that I meet people as, funny thing is I've realized now I have pretty much exactly what I wanted. Minus The mythical Mr. Right anyway but over time I've grown quite a few friends who mean a lot to me and who like me because I am the way I am. Wow, I came full circle and ended up right where I wanted to be.
Damn, if this isn't long enough already but now I have to put in this second interesting aside. See, most every guy wants the perfect sweet, smart girl... who's also nasty in bed. BUT society has this stupid, psychotic dichotomy between the Madonna and the whore. Sooooo... typically guys will marry the sweet girl and take them home to mum, and the the other one's the mistress, right? BUT if that girl really is the fantasy both?? Guys I swear are crazy! If the girl is "sweet" then any sign of nasty and she's somehow damaged goods. Oh yes, don't say it's not so! I am saying this from experience. The look of shock, disappointment, then slight disgust. Suddenly you're not good enough anymore. So now, funny thing I've recently found is it works better from the other way around. Seems it's easier for guys to find the sweetness in a whore than a whore in a sweet girl. Silly isn't it?
** Off the top of my head, 2 really good books on the topic:
Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephanie Coontz, and
Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Replacing the Church; social function of the institution
I didn't imagine to start with such an academic subject but this is the thought that hit me... Discussing with someone his marital problems, theirs is a problem for many, their relationship has become too insular, too wrapped up around each other to the exclusion of all else.
There are loads of lonely people out there today, singles and couples alike. Modern living is insular, people do not have to interact with anyone outside of their private lives and work if they don't want to, or don't make an effort to. The village is pretty much gone the way we live today. Community is still a very necessary part of what it is to be human but in a lot of ways it's something you need to take an active effort in creating for yourself, creating a community for yourself that you can feel a part of.
Granted, some lucky people have a rewarding work life, that they are happy doing and feel like they are contributing to the world around them. The rest of us working stiffs have to do things outside of work so that we can feel connected, that we are valuable and meaningful, if only to those small group of people who we care about what they think.
I've thought about this a lot, about the loneliness I see in soooooo many New Yorkers and also in regards to raising kids. It does take a village to raise a child. This whole business of "it's the parents' responsibility" and the schools and community institutions have no right breaching the sanctity of privacy is a load of crap. I do think kids today wouldn't be so warped if they had a village, a community to feel connected, valuable and meaningful.
Without getting too much into child rearing, this now gets into the social function of the institution of the church (or temple, or mosque, or house of xyz). Leaving aside the religion itself, the institution provides numerous social functions. Social revolutions of the 60s wouldn't have happened the way they did if it wasn't for black churches that provided the social cohesion, awareness, organization... long before the students got involved. Nearly the entire country was colonized on the basis of building utopian communities founded through their religious organizations! (Ok, I'm exaggerating on the entire country part but it is a main byline in the stoy of America).
At any rate, though it cannot be denied that the role of the church has diminished over the last 50 years, if you look at the institution itself, there is something absolutely beautiful about a place to come together with your community, to feel a family, among your "brethren". I've been to a couple churches before. The rituals themselves encourage togetherness. Sure, as all rituals, that everyone knows the same steps and symbolism, yes. The singing I'm sure has some cathartic affect. But it seems they always have you hold hands or embrace your neighbor or some sort of group thing. Reminds me of some of the exercises they do at leadership camps and support groups and things.
The problem with the church today is the secularism that is in essence the same as was the problem with sectarianism. The same forces that drove the religious groups to colonize what's now the US was, if you'll remember, the printing press and increased literacy enabling individual interpretation of scripture, whereas this power was previously entirely within the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. This was, at the same time, the same origin of the beginnings of sectarian scientific thought (eg. Aristotle was excommunicated from the church) and went right along with secularization of political institutions.
So now if the printing press shook things up... we are long past that. Information seems to necessarily cause fragmentation. The more information that's out there, the more varied, the more that it becomes up to individual interpretation. The more so people have to make up their own minds about what they're going to believe, confronted with so many options, or the un-option of opting to do nothing and being one of the herd.
I am going off on a tangent that I'm not so sure how I got here but on a side note, I think it's why it's so hard for people to find "the one". With so much variety in the world it becomes a game of numbers. The more unique you are the less likely there's someone else who you'll be in complete sync with, no?
Anyway... where did I wander from? Er... science, secularism, literacy, education, independent thought... it's all caught up on the church. National polls show that the US is actually one of THE MOST religious countries in the world. Based on how many people say they believe in god. But the churches are going broke. Shit, with
Americans with some of the longest work hours in the world, who the hell has time to go to church every Sunday?! But forgive me if I'm wrong, most people that I've spoken to who don't "practice" their faith say it's because it's not related to the institution of the church and many take issue with the "herd mentality" of being preached to, being told what to think, how to behave. Religion has become a very private matter, the social institution of the church isn't entirely appropriate any more. (The church has been outmoded. That's kind of funny, lol).
Soooooo, after having explained all this.... My warped brainchild I was think about this morning is creating a social institution that provides the same community function, replacing the church. The church has been outmoded but there are gaping holes left where it used to facilitate community building functions. Considering we can all read scriptures for ourselves, the basis of, and problem for the church is consensus on one accepted version for "the way things are", which then provides the basis for community and shared values. Given that, wouldn't it be possible to slightly shift the premise for "the way things are" to a more universal theme? Especially considering all religions share the same basic principles. Can't it be a nonsectarian agreement on civility, decency...? I mean, that was the first function of the religion right? Practices of a certain tribe that distinguished them, This is how Our people behave.
The church provided identity, inclusion in a social community, and helped people figure out their "place in the world" and that by holding to practices xyz, god will be happy, and by virtue of that, security is assured (afterlife included). The big questions of Why things are the way they are. What is the meaning of life. Science and philosophy have worn upon theology but it hasn't changed people's need to have answers for those questions. People still need a supportive community who can help make sense of this oh, so, ever more complex world. Ethics, right and wrong, feeling part of something that could make an impact and not just one person...
Wait, next I'm going to start getting into what would be a very long discussion about fear, ignorance, and faith. Ugh, stop me now. Brain fart. Anyway, that was what I was thinking about this AM. Creation of a social institution that fills community functions the church used to but minus the focus on religion.
There are loads of lonely people out there today, singles and couples alike. Modern living is insular, people do not have to interact with anyone outside of their private lives and work if they don't want to, or don't make an effort to. The village is pretty much gone the way we live today. Community is still a very necessary part of what it is to be human but in a lot of ways it's something you need to take an active effort in creating for yourself, creating a community for yourself that you can feel a part of.
Granted, some lucky people have a rewarding work life, that they are happy doing and feel like they are contributing to the world around them. The rest of us working stiffs have to do things outside of work so that we can feel connected, that we are valuable and meaningful, if only to those small group of people who we care about what they think.
I've thought about this a lot, about the loneliness I see in soooooo many New Yorkers and also in regards to raising kids. It does take a village to raise a child. This whole business of "it's the parents' responsibility" and the schools and community institutions have no right breaching the sanctity of privacy is a load of crap. I do think kids today wouldn't be so warped if they had a village, a community to feel connected, valuable and meaningful.
Without getting too much into child rearing, this now gets into the social function of the institution of the church (or temple, or mosque, or house of xyz). Leaving aside the religion itself, the institution provides numerous social functions. Social revolutions of the 60s wouldn't have happened the way they did if it wasn't for black churches that provided the social cohesion, awareness, organization... long before the students got involved. Nearly the entire country was colonized on the basis of building utopian communities founded through their religious organizations! (Ok, I'm exaggerating on the entire country part but it is a main byline in the stoy of America).
At any rate, though it cannot be denied that the role of the church has diminished over the last 50 years, if you look at the institution itself, there is something absolutely beautiful about a place to come together with your community, to feel a family, among your "brethren". I've been to a couple churches before. The rituals themselves encourage togetherness. Sure, as all rituals, that everyone knows the same steps and symbolism, yes. The singing I'm sure has some cathartic affect. But it seems they always have you hold hands or embrace your neighbor or some sort of group thing. Reminds me of some of the exercises they do at leadership camps and support groups and things.
The problem with the church today is the secularism that is in essence the same as was the problem with sectarianism. The same forces that drove the religious groups to colonize what's now the US was, if you'll remember, the printing press and increased literacy enabling individual interpretation of scripture, whereas this power was previously entirely within the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. This was, at the same time, the same origin of the beginnings of sectarian scientific thought (eg. Aristotle was excommunicated from the church) and went right along with secularization of political institutions.
So now if the printing press shook things up... we are long past that. Information seems to necessarily cause fragmentation. The more information that's out there, the more varied, the more that it becomes up to individual interpretation. The more so people have to make up their own minds about what they're going to believe, confronted with so many options, or the un-option of opting to do nothing and being one of the herd.
I am going off on a tangent that I'm not so sure how I got here but on a side note, I think it's why it's so hard for people to find "the one". With so much variety in the world it becomes a game of numbers. The more unique you are the less likely there's someone else who you'll be in complete sync with, no?
Anyway... where did I wander from? Er... science, secularism, literacy, education, independent thought... it's all caught up on the church. National polls show that the US is actually one of THE MOST religious countries in the world. Based on how many people say they believe in god. But the churches are going broke. Shit, with
Americans with some of the longest work hours in the world, who the hell has time to go to church every Sunday?! But forgive me if I'm wrong, most people that I've spoken to who don't "practice" their faith say it's because it's not related to the institution of the church and many take issue with the "herd mentality" of being preached to, being told what to think, how to behave. Religion has become a very private matter, the social institution of the church isn't entirely appropriate any more. (The church has been outmoded. That's kind of funny, lol).
Soooooo, after having explained all this.... My warped brainchild I was think about this morning is creating a social institution that provides the same community function, replacing the church. The church has been outmoded but there are gaping holes left where it used to facilitate community building functions. Considering we can all read scriptures for ourselves, the basis of, and problem for the church is consensus on one accepted version for "the way things are", which then provides the basis for community and shared values. Given that, wouldn't it be possible to slightly shift the premise for "the way things are" to a more universal theme? Especially considering all religions share the same basic principles. Can't it be a nonsectarian agreement on civility, decency...? I mean, that was the first function of the religion right? Practices of a certain tribe that distinguished them, This is how Our people behave.
The church provided identity, inclusion in a social community, and helped people figure out their "place in the world" and that by holding to practices xyz, god will be happy, and by virtue of that, security is assured (afterlife included). The big questions of Why things are the way they are. What is the meaning of life. Science and philosophy have worn upon theology but it hasn't changed people's need to have answers for those questions. People still need a supportive community who can help make sense of this oh, so, ever more complex world. Ethics, right and wrong, feeling part of something that could make an impact and not just one person...
Wait, next I'm going to start getting into what would be a very long discussion about fear, ignorance, and faith. Ugh, stop me now. Brain fart. Anyway, that was what I was thinking about this AM. Creation of a social institution that fills community functions the church used to but minus the focus on religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
