Monday, June 11, 2018
Polyamorous Relationships as Social Evolution, Change, nothing' stays the same
What does not change in life. Being Polyamorous is the new gay.
And so now from the beginning of time where we didn't, now we have
gay marriages and acceptance as society is being brought up.
Marijuana is coming to the light now, as people ask and learn what it really
does finding it's not that bad with education about it.
We are heading for a correction from the stagnant past.
A Social Evolution rolling as it's "Change, nothing' stays the same."
And so "I hit the ground running." Me? I am Polyamorous but prefer
Polyandry (classic V) It's just a point of working that out together.
Me, I am willing and open to be open with each other!
The point of it all is just building trust as in all
relationships all should all get in bed together and...
Talk about your insecurities in how to resolve them and so it's the point
to fix it in all. Like the 2000's psychology crappy therapist statement,
"Show her the building." Show them the effort. The proof it's real!
Now it's not that you are showing the building it's about building that foundation
for the building because no one knows what the building will look like till
all builds it! And so the change in that is better than not!
~~~~~Maybe Monogamy Isn’t the Only Way to Love
In the prologue to her new book, What Love Is and What It Could Be, philosopher Carrie Jenkins is walking through Vancouver, from her boyfriend’s apartment to the home she has with her husband. She wonders at how the romantic love she experiences firsthand is so different than the model presented by popular culture and academic theory alike. “If indeed romantic love must be monogamous, then I am making some kind of mistake when I say, ‘I’m in love with you’ — meaning romantically — to both my partners,” she writes. “I am not lying, because I am genuinely trying to be as honest as I can. But if romantic love requires monogamy, then despite my best intentions, what I’m saying at those moments is not, strictly speaking, true.”
Her book examines the long, sometimes awkward legacy of philosophers’ thinking on romantic love, and compares that with a new subfield in close-relationships research — consensual nonmonogamy, or CNM. While singers and thinkers alike have been riffing on a “one and only” for decades, she argues that space is being made in the cultural conversation to “question the universal norm of monogamous love, just as we previously created space to question the universal norm of hetero love.” These norms are more fluid than they appear: In Jenkins’s lifetime alone, same-sex and cross-ethnicity relationships have become common.
When I asked Jenkins to describe how it feels to have both a husband and a boyfriend — she rejects the “primary relationship” moniker altogether — she said that it’s like having more loving relationships in your life, like a close family member or friend. She and her boyfriend, whom she’s been with for about five years, used to work in the same building; he was teaching creative writing on the floor above her philosophy department, though they didn’t meet until they matched on OkCupid. While both men have met each other, they’re not close; Jenkins describes the relationship as having a “V shape,” rather than a triangle. Both helped in the development of the book: husband refining philosophical arguments; boyfriend editing the writing, and helping her to sound like a normal person, rather than an academic.
~~~~~A Consideration of Polyamorous Relationships as Social Evolution
Very few species on the planet are actually monogamous. One presumes that this is because monogamy would not be evolutionarily advantageous in terms of perpetuating a species.
Marriage, and its attendant presupposition of monogamy, is a social convention imposed to legitimize human sexual activity, which, at some point in our history became something to be regulated, if not disdained.
Infidelity, whether actual, emotional or objective (e.g., porn, strip clubs, etc.) is almost a given within our culture. Why is that? Considering here our premises regarding monogamy and the imposition of social convention, might it not be because monogamy is antithetical to some primal hardwiring that drives the perpetuation of the species? What if we were to characterize infidelity not as a moral transgression, but, rather, as an artifact prompted by the imposition of an unnatural stricture on a system that is unwilling to accept that stricture? In other words, what if we weren't meant to be monogamous and all of the variations of infidelity -- whether they be actual, emotional or objective -- are in fact the result of trying to put a square peg in a round hole?
In order to have this conversation rationally, we are going to have to suspend our natural tendency to exercise the moral conventions, ego and catholic rigidity to which we have all been socialized and look at this notion from a completely objective standpoint. That is undeniably difficult, but consider it rationally for a moment.
Doesn't it make sense that, at some point in our social evolution, polyamority would be re-introduced as the logical standard for perpetuating the species? And, given that, doesn't it make sense to consider that non-socio-sexually deviant proponents of The Lifestyle are actually more in line with that evolutionary imperative to perpetuate the species?
Granted, this conversation actually raises more questions that it answers, and I, for one, am not going to pretend to have the background to begin positing potential hypotheses on the matter.
And, yes, what I've proposed -- from the standpoint of conventional morality -- does, indeed, suggest an "inmates-running-the-prison" scenario. But if our own intellectual imperative is to think outside the box and consider all facets of a thing, then I think I may have just handed off to someone the makings of a pretty spectacular doctoral dissertation.