The End of Tradition

Romantic diversification, that is ultimately what polyamory is about. There is not one person who can fulfill all our needs, there is not one person who can make us thoroughly happy. You can argue that a romantic partner should make us happy in one or two key areas and the other areas should be satisfied or bolstered by other types of relationships. But just what are the odds? It's 2020 and we've finally thrown out the idea of The One and have been educated of all the hard work that is needed to make a relationship work. 

People are ever changing. Time is progressing. The era is evolving. 

How, then, can people realistically pair up with someone for life? I find it fascinating that we keep looking up to the 5% (if even, wild guess) of truly happy, successful marriages and think that that is our future. People continue to marry with the expectation of lifelong marital bliss and compatibility. The truth is, those are unicorn unions. 

Most marriages I know have ended up in divorce, have experienced infidelity or a significant betrayal in some form, or are dead but still reside together. 

Why do we uphold this tradition? A tradition that sets up so many couples for failure? It is unreasonable and unrealistic to think we're going to like living with someone even beyond three years. So much can happen in three years, so much learning and growth or the opposite, stagnancy. 

I've found that people have a very absolute idea of love. They'd say if that person loved you, that they wouldn't have done or said that to you. They think that true love is forever--I agree that true love is forever. I still love people from past relationships but am no longer with them. However, relationships are not necessarily forever. The existence of an active relationship does not have to accompany the continuation of true love. It is an undercurrent. It is a neverending connection, an appreciation for the other that lasts beyond the life of an active relationship. 

Attachment is the issue. If we felt secure within ourselves, we would never feel the need to permanently attach to anyone. I've realized that letting go is very, very common problem. Codependency in family and romantic partnerships are EXTREMELY common. People will put up with the most ridiculous people because they are afraid of losing the relationship, they are uncomfortable of not having that harmful/incompatible in their lives. They've learned to lean too heavily into the security of the relationship even if it would benefit them more to end it. 

Editing is hard. 

We have a tendency to create a false sense of security because we are desperate to feel safe. We are wired to comfort ourselves and to do whatever it is that makes us feel safe and loved. Even if what we do has very low chances of actually creating security, if it is familiar, it is most likely what will be repeated. 

What is familiar? Whatever is our normal. "Normal" really should only apply to the sciences. For example, the output is normal because of an input, across the board in whatever system it operates in. "Normal" in humanity has been used as an oppressive excuse to keep unfair and unreasonable dynamics in place, an excuse for laziness, to avoid learning and understanding different perspectives and needs. 

We all have our own norms; idiosyncrasy, and tribes have their own norms; culture. We can identify with more than one tribe, meaning we are all so incredibly nuanced and influenced by many different cultures. 

How then can anyone be wholly normal? We are all abnormal, which is "normal." Using the word normal to describe anything tends to do a disservice to everyone, really. 

Marriage is normal but it is not the only option. People need to be informed of all the other possibilities for partnerships and relationships. There are friends who choose to parent an adopted child together or friends who choose to have a child together because they are comfortable with having sex together and share responsibilities yet do not have that sense of attachment and ownership that is typical of a romantic pairing. 

I understand simplifying who can do what with who in a categorical manner feels easier and clarifies conduct in certain situations but I think the spectrum of humanity is so vast and diverse. Also these categorical rules have been shown to not even work out for the most part, there needs to be a major institutional overhaul of all of the laws and teachings that have been passed down for centuries. 

They have not scaled well.

The fact that humanity is constantly evolving means that every single thing that involves us will need to evolve as well. Nostalgia for the good ole' days is a powerful emotion, it is attachment to what was familiar. 

Attachment's a big freaking problem, what can I say? I understand its history and purpose. I understand we need loyalty and we fear being hurt. Yet, I'd argue, the people who are most for attachment-based dynamics are the ones who hurt others the most. That is why we are where we are right now. These people who have been fine with hurting people they've seen as others for as long as they have. 

Many, many, many injustices on all levels, in all kinds of relationships was due to the mentality that it is OK to treat the other person in a harmful matter just because they didn't matter as much to the individual. 

I think we need to begin to see everyone as individuals. To prioritize a subset of people is to elevate them over others and that's when biased, discriminatory, unreasonable opinions and decisions occur. 

We need to learn to detach from everyone and everything and be fully present with ourselves to truly be a fair person to all persons. 

How long is that going to take? Another millennium? Fucking yikes.