Apparently I'm having some sort of creative burst lately. I'm sure a drought will come soon enough, but maybe I can bust out enough to get you through.
I recently had a bit of my writing published in CiN Weekly, the Cincinnati Enquirer's weekly YP-geared paper. And when I reflected upon it in its published state (it's bits and pieces of previous posts on here, mostly), it comes off as very pro-monogamy. Monogamy is well and good, but that wasn't really my point. It was more anti-bullshit and anti-excuses than pro-monogamy. If you want to sow, sow. Just don't put a ring on it. I have absolutely no problems with "players" or the George Clooneys of the world. It's the Eliot Spitzers who go and get married and then mess around.
I've theorized (there's no real work in theorizing, which is what I like about it) that you can break down attraction and intimacy and commitment into three stages (you can sort it out a lot of other ways, but stick with me for a sec). First, you like each other. You want to see each other and make out and blah blah blah. Then you start wanting them to be yours. You don't want them to be with other people. You get jealous. You think, I need to make this person my boyfriend/girlfriend so that he/she can't be with other people. The ultimate level (and THIS is the level you should get to before making a commitment) is when YOU don't want to be with anyone else. You can't build a relationship on keeping someone away from others. Which is why so-called "girl-power" anthems like Beyonce's "Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)" are misleading, and probably damaging to relationships. It's basically saying, oh, you regret letting me go? You should have made a commitment. No! You should make a commitment because it's that important to you to devote yourself to making this person a part of your life, making them happy, and being a better person for it.
Not to get sappy- because honestly, I don't see more value in commitment and monogamy than I do in sowing seeds and being George Clooney. As long as you're authentic and honest to yourself and others, there's no greater validity in any choice of lifestyle, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not pro-monogamy. I'm not pro-polygamy. I'm not really pro-anything except do what results in a social exchange profit of maximum satisfaction for you and minimum cost to others.
A ring is not a leash. Nor is it bait. So no need to put one on it.
Put a glove on it, though- just the PSA of the day.
Peace out, kids
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
When does monogamy come into play? People must have an understanding of what they want in a relationship. They can decide to be monogamous or promiscuous in a relationship. Open relationships, if that's what you want to call it, is cheapen by the promiscuity of the individuals within this so-called bond. But as long as it does not conflict with their morals and they can live with themselves, its admissible. On the other hand, a committed relationship requires monogamy. It really does not require much thought. What is the value of your character and reputation if everyone has had their turn? No body wants used or damaged goods in this department. It’s fine if you want to practice promiscuity or monogamy. The point is take responsibility for the decisions that you make and stick with it.
I liked the cin weekly article. And think you should See if they will pick you up as a "dear doug" replacement.
that said. I agree with the article, and I think that the lack honest communication is at the heart of most promiscuous and hurtful relationship. I think even the George Cloonys of the world are looking for something deeper, and more meaningful.. Weather they know it or not...
Post a Comment