Tuesday, February 01, 2005
A New Paradigm For Love? - Or Is It Just More 'Blog'na??
I've been reading for a few weeks the sad, frustrating, and heartfelt stories of several women's search for romance, truth, and sex (not necessarily in that order, on a Friday night.) Its like a depressing Sex And The City episode but I've come away with this sense: be careful what you ask for.
It struck me that these same women in several months could/may be sitting around complaining about the relationships they've just developed/fallen into. I say that because I know the work that's involved in maintaining a relationship. It's not easy. And SOOOO many times people do "settle" for their mate. Lets face it nobody's perfect and to DEMAND PERFECTION, you BETTER BE what you demand. So people are willing to compensate for another's failings because they are human too. Consequently as imperfections start to annoy and polarize, they find themselves writing blogs to each other pointing out how they'd wished that their goddam mate would "........." (fill in the blank)etc. Next thing you know the whole shootin match is goin to hell in the tiskit tasket freakin yellow basket and bam! back where ya started. The Dating Drag.
THE NEW PARADIGM:
Nobody likes to sleep alone all the time. Its certainly nice to have someone warm next to you on occasion (or even more), and even nicer to boot if you get to score in the homerun derby. Problem is, the availability of a new boyfriend/girlfriend poses an annoying prerequisite - that of having to "match" shit - you know, personality, desires, and the whole plethora of demands which go hand in hand with deciding this one is THE one, and the ONE AND ONLY for life. Yikes! No wonder people go nuts.
What I'm suggesting is that instead of going thru the rigorous convolutions of convincing oneself that joe/jane shmo is the New, Now, Cat's Meow sent from heaven above, why not set up a "romance, friends, sex, support network collective". That would be a union of M/F friends who ideally should be on the same 'basic' level of intelligence, looks, economic strata, emotional balance - the stuff that friends are made of. The only difference would be that you would all share each other. Not just sex bingo but more along the lines of a roommate/family style of living where emotional support, communication, cooperation, and standard values would be encouraged - would actually be the norm. Only difference is you'd get to sleep with whomever - based on the mutual choice of the individuals, even if sex were not an option, or were.
Of course, you'd have to determine first and foremost that this is only a temporary situation and that no one can become emotionally entangled/involved with any of the members. It would be set up as an opportunity to provide a TEMPORARY stopgap to emotional and sexual desperation while simultaneously providing the individual the opportunity to go out and meet people with whom one could develop a monogamous relationship.
Emotional entanglement = exclusion.
The process of "inclusion" would be one whereby founding members would:
1.have to like and enjoy each other's company and most importantly
2.be able to sleep with different people while understanding that the relationship with the group is the sustaining energy, not the individual's selfish needs.
What this provides to each person is a more rounded, balanced degree of attention and understanding which is generally (honestly, almost universally!) unable to be achieved with just 1 mate. Another advantage is that the initial people who choose new 'members' would form a sort of council which would, importantly, help to determine the validity and reliability of potential newbies. Its a fact that women are much more likely to fall victim to predatory men when they do not have the benefit of a network of people/friends/family.
Of course, this is just a preliminary concept - any positive suggestions are critical to further developing it.
It struck me that these same women in several months could/may be sitting around complaining about the relationships they've just developed/fallen into. I say that because I know the work that's involved in maintaining a relationship. It's not easy. And SOOOO many times people do "settle" for their mate. Lets face it nobody's perfect and to DEMAND PERFECTION, you BETTER BE what you demand. So people are willing to compensate for another's failings because they are human too. Consequently as imperfections start to annoy and polarize, they find themselves writing blogs to each other pointing out how they'd wished that their goddam mate would "........." (fill in the blank)etc. Next thing you know the whole shootin match is goin to hell in the tiskit tasket freakin yellow basket and bam! back where ya started. The Dating Drag.
THE NEW PARADIGM:
Nobody likes to sleep alone all the time. Its certainly nice to have someone warm next to you on occasion (or even more), and even nicer to boot if you get to score in the homerun derby. Problem is, the availability of a new boyfriend/girlfriend poses an annoying prerequisite - that of having to "match" shit - you know, personality, desires, and the whole plethora of demands which go hand in hand with deciding this one is THE one, and the ONE AND ONLY for life. Yikes! No wonder people go nuts.
What I'm suggesting is that instead of going thru the rigorous convolutions of convincing oneself that joe/jane shmo is the New, Now, Cat's Meow sent from heaven above, why not set up a "romance, friends, sex, support network collective". That would be a union of M/F friends who ideally should be on the same 'basic' level of intelligence, looks, economic strata, emotional balance - the stuff that friends are made of. The only difference would be that you would all share each other. Not just sex bingo but more along the lines of a roommate/family style of living where emotional support, communication, cooperation, and standard values would be encouraged - would actually be the norm. Only difference is you'd get to sleep with whomever - based on the mutual choice of the individuals, even if sex were not an option, or were.
Of course, you'd have to determine first and foremost that this is only a temporary situation and that no one can become emotionally entangled/involved with any of the members. It would be set up as an opportunity to provide a TEMPORARY stopgap to emotional and sexual desperation while simultaneously providing the individual the opportunity to go out and meet people with whom one could develop a monogamous relationship.
Emotional entanglement = exclusion.
The process of "inclusion" would be one whereby founding members would:
1.have to like and enjoy each other's company and most importantly
2.be able to sleep with different people while understanding that the relationship with the group is the sustaining energy, not the individual's selfish needs.
What this provides to each person is a more rounded, balanced degree of attention and understanding which is generally (honestly, almost universally!) unable to be achieved with just 1 mate. Another advantage is that the initial people who choose new 'members' would form a sort of council which would, importantly, help to determine the validity and reliability of potential newbies. Its a fact that women are much more likely to fall victim to predatory men when they do not have the benefit of a network of people/friends/family.
Of course, this is just a preliminary concept - any positive suggestions are critical to further developing it.
Comments:
<< Home
green said there's a site called friendster that let's groups of friends meet other friends by reading comments about each other. it's used in the capacity that you're talking about.
the girls and i often joke that we are a bad sex in the city, except not much sex going on... these blogs may seem like a look into some extra pathetic crap of extra pathetic women, but i really think that the stories are representative of most heterosexual women. men and martha talk about sports, women like to talk about boys. we learn from very young ages to do so.
the girls and i often joke that we are a bad sex in the city, except not much sex going on... these blogs may seem like a look into some extra pathetic crap of extra pathetic women, but i really think that the stories are representative of most heterosexual women. men and martha talk about sports, women like to talk about boys. we learn from very young ages to do so.
Michael Jackson??? Gee, I dont remember the sleeping with young boys reference in the blog there, you angry, angry lady!
Raina - I must confess I used the term 'depressing' more as poetic license to make the point. Frustrating would probably have been the more appropriate term but in any case I know you guys are just out there havin fun in the city - good, bad, and ugly.
D
D
In Response:
1st I'm married and this doesn’t have anything to do with any of my personal desires.
2nd its obvious you’ve forgotten the annoying aspects of being single and having to "find someone". This wasn’t some silly sex-fantasy of mine. This was a concept thought up in regard to the plight of single people who
1.feel trapped into having to connect with people they don’t REALLY want to be with (emotionally and/or sexually), or
2.feel compelled to choose the prospect of being with no-one until a "perfect person" pops up.
Of course sex is special - but how about if you havent gotten laid in 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 months? How many times have people in that situation turned to settling for a convenient fix - how "special" is that?? Kinda sounds like "masturbation" doesn’t it? Seriously, can you really defend the Old Paradigm as being so fulfilling and enriching that a new concept isnt worth at least trying to cultivate and promote?
3rd I'm not proposing an orgasmatronic revolving door of fornicators bounding pell mell in a frenzy and froth of semen and inebriated by the pheromonically driven scent of female estrus. (or am I???)
No, I'm not. I'm saying that a group of like-minded, like-hearted friends could choose the option of being together on more than the typical socially confining level. Sure this sounds commune-istic, but the community doesn’t necessarily have to be as damned solitary as it is. That is the bane of our capitalistic society: The individual is not allowed to be emotionally supported by society (rugged individualism) and hence, lonely people stand in rooms side by side with those other lonely people.
OK,whats worse - sleeping with someone you truly like half the time or sleeping with someone you Need. And this proposal is all set up as a temporary situation anyway, until you do find someone you want to go solo with. (Plus the # of people within the group would be determined by the sensibilities of the group.)
4th The control factor in relationships makes this very difficult. As long as you HAVE to love someone in order to be respectable; As long as you HAVE to love someone in order to have sex; as long as people INSIST on forcing other people to conform to some concept of what's "right", growth is essentially stunted. Nobody said love was forbidden. That’s why this was proposed: to create an environment that would be temporarily nurturing for all within, and to minimize the anxiety while searching for a meaningful 'love' in your life. All without the losing a sense of your own personal power.
5th - BTW '60's communes ate it because of the mushrooming drug culture of the times.
Thank you for your encouragement and illuminating thoughts.
Post a Comment
1st I'm married and this doesn’t have anything to do with any of my personal desires.
2nd its obvious you’ve forgotten the annoying aspects of being single and having to "find someone". This wasn’t some silly sex-fantasy of mine. This was a concept thought up in regard to the plight of single people who
1.feel trapped into having to connect with people they don’t REALLY want to be with (emotionally and/or sexually), or
2.feel compelled to choose the prospect of being with no-one until a "perfect person" pops up.
Of course sex is special - but how about if you havent gotten laid in 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 months? How many times have people in that situation turned to settling for a convenient fix - how "special" is that?? Kinda sounds like "masturbation" doesn’t it? Seriously, can you really defend the Old Paradigm as being so fulfilling and enriching that a new concept isnt worth at least trying to cultivate and promote?
3rd I'm not proposing an orgasmatronic revolving door of fornicators bounding pell mell in a frenzy and froth of semen and inebriated by the pheromonically driven scent of female estrus. (or am I???)
No, I'm not. I'm saying that a group of like-minded, like-hearted friends could choose the option of being together on more than the typical socially confining level. Sure this sounds commune-istic, but the community doesn’t necessarily have to be as damned solitary as it is. That is the bane of our capitalistic society: The individual is not allowed to be emotionally supported by society (rugged individualism) and hence, lonely people stand in rooms side by side with those other lonely people.
OK,whats worse - sleeping with someone you truly like half the time or sleeping with someone you Need. And this proposal is all set up as a temporary situation anyway, until you do find someone you want to go solo with. (Plus the # of people within the group would be determined by the sensibilities of the group.)
4th The control factor in relationships makes this very difficult. As long as you HAVE to love someone in order to be respectable; As long as you HAVE to love someone in order to have sex; as long as people INSIST on forcing other people to conform to some concept of what's "right", growth is essentially stunted. Nobody said love was forbidden. That’s why this was proposed: to create an environment that would be temporarily nurturing for all within, and to minimize the anxiety while searching for a meaningful 'love' in your life. All without the losing a sense of your own personal power.
5th - BTW '60's communes ate it because of the mushrooming drug culture of the times.
Thank you for your encouragement and illuminating thoughts.
<< Home
