Cindy Kesey : Should I Stay or Should I Go

http://cindykesey.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-living-loving-openly-on-off-the-second-life-grid/

Hi Cindy,

Insightful blog as always, and I for one is a little sad to see you fade away from it and SL. I do hope you start up a new one to expound on your new RL revelations. You make me think, and I appreciate that.

I wanted to wait before commenting on your blog, not wanting to transform this post into a two woman show but as time went on my verbosity ran away with my fingers I decided to make this a blog post of my own. Perhaps it may inspire you to launch your RL blog?

Whilst I totally agree with you that the confines of a tradional monogamous relationship can be quite rigid and limiting, I do believe they are far less now than they used to be. Throughout the ages, people of a certain social standing used marriage as a business transaction, securing wealth, power, station, stability, alliances, children, etc in return for their unions. They rarely had a say in whom they would marry. The benefits of marriage for the working and poorer classes were certainly less, but it still bettered their lot somewhat and improved the chances of their children to come to maturity as there was one parent left to care for them should the other kick the bucket early. They had far more of a choice of mate, within their social strata and ofen would marry for love/lust/attraction. More of a choice but not much more freedom.

Arranged marriages are pretty much a thing of the past in the western world; we are free to marry whomever for whatever reason we fancy. That most often boils down to marrying for love, although plenty still marry for money and/or social standing. We have a choice that our forebearers did not have, and futhermore, we even have the choice of not bonding or marrying at all. After all, children, money, fame, fortune, etc can all be achieved alone. We no longer need two to survive and better ourselves, we no longer need two to pass on our genetic heritage in the form of children.

You bring on the concept of happily-ever-after as an elusive and perhaps even destructive fairy tale. I need to ask, what does happily-ever-after mean, really? If you infer by it the state of limerence as describe by Dorothy Tennov then of course, that excitement of an early relationship, the thrill of meeting, discovering, adoring/worshipping, the be-all-and-end-all of the other, the walking on air and stimulating ego boost, then yes... That is definitively a fairy tale of momentous proportions. How many (sane and somewhat intelligent) people actually believe this though? I haven't met one yet, but perhaps I circulate in particularly cynical circles.

Limerence is a phase of a relationship, a very heady one, that most people agree fades in time and is, hopefully, replaced by something else. Does that change make people unhappy? Is it the end of happily-ever-after? For some, it is. They are unable or unwilling to pass on to the next stage and are forever longing for the return of limerence. Needless to say, their long term relationships, if they even exist, don't truly last.

Our forebearers had a business deal to uphold; genetic immortality in the form of children vs stability/power/money/etc. One would have hoped that many of these unions be satisfying one, but happiness was never a key factor in maintaining the relationship. Unless perhaps, you were Henry VIII... ;-) I strongly believe that since we have a choice to bond to one person or not, we have an obligation to ensure this bond evolves in time and still satisfies us, or in other words, continues to contribute to our happiness. We can refuse to let a long term relationship be a (or perhaps even the) source of our unhappiness. Now more then ever our possibilities are vast. We can choose to enrich our relationship in a myriad of ways or we can chose to leave it behind. Divorce is no longer a stigma and no longer an overt sign of failure as a human being. Of course, some people make a mockery of marriage and divorce by repeating them over and over again.... There you go, limerence all over again instead of a mature, evolving relationship.

Some blame Cinderella, or as you say the Cult of Fidelity, I personally blame the Cult of Consumerism for the appalling failure of long term relationships. We were indoctrinated from cradle on that "We CAN have it all, RIGHT NOW", "We're worth it", "We deserve the best, nothing less will do", "We can have you cake and eat it too", "Mastercard moments are priceless"... Say what??? This sense of entitlement ruins people financially, spiritually and emotionally on a daily basis. We always want more, on every level. We chase "happiness" like a greyhound chases the racetrack's mechanical rabbit. Totally focused and engrossed in it during the chase only to disdainfully spit it out when it's caught and stops moving. But oh look, there's another rabbit running away!!! And the chase is on. We are a society of perpetually unsatisfied people who deep down believe that the next new shiny thing (whatever that could be) is the answer to our unhappiness.

As previously said, there are many things that one can do to enrich their long term relationship and some go the swinging or polyamorous route. I too see a vast difference between the two, they are very different in my eyes and should never be confused. Like you, I find swinging rather shallow and vacuous but can completely understand how it could add some spice back into one's existence if done openly and honestly. It isn't without its pitfalls and dangers and it must be handled openly and truthfully lest it ultimately become detrimental. Still, it is something for people to consider and discuss, and eventually decide upon.

Although seemingly more noble, polyamory also is fraught with often unseen or unthought dangers. Whilst I firmly believe that one can truly love more than one person at a time, where does one draw the line at how many and whom? And what do we expect these people to be in our lives? What happens to the new partner five years down the road when the headiness of the early days is gone? When the new partner is no longer new and exciting but just as "every day" as the bonded partner? Does one then go on to someone else? Does one's investment in a person other than our bonded mate come at their detriment in time? At the detriment of the bonded relationship? How many spouse have felt some jealousy towards their own children for momentarily capturing the other's undivided attention? How does that transfer to another adult person? Is everyone supposed to get along like one big happy family? What if your mate, jealousy aside, really dislikes your new partner? It's one thing to dislike some of your bonded mate's friend, but a lover?

Some people equate poly to bigamy or polygamy, but I don't believe it to be the case, at least not at this time. Most polys don't live in a multiple adults blended family. Most live an outwardly traditional monogamous lifestyle, but with other partners that do not share the same physical space. Bigamy/polygamy has been around as long as mankind as a practical and sometimes cultural solution to the harshness of life. I see polyamory as a fairly recent variation; a blend of polygamy and extra-marital affairs, perhaps? It's having it all, right now, openly. Eating your cake and having it too.

As I was mulling over the ramifications of a poly lifestyle more questions, unanswerable to me, kept on cropping up. What about children? Every single birth control method known to man, save hysterectomy, has been known to fail. Does one expects one's bonded partner to accept a child as their own if the paternity is unsure? Or do we divide them out along the lines of biological parenthood? Reverse the scenario and take a man leading a poly lifestyle with multiple partners. Most would want to contribure to all his children's lives and assure their future, but can you expect his bonded spouse to accept that this will invariably be to her own children's detriment?

Is the non-bonded partner a partner of lesser importance? If we stick to the premise that one can love many equally then the answer should be a resounding no, but in practicality does that actually happen? Although we may not necessarily want to be the ONLY mate, most would rarely gracefully accept to be "lesser" one forever.

Same-sex couples have fought long and hard to be recognised as lawful entities. What about polys? Will we expect society to grant polyamorists the same rights as bonded couples when it come to wills, estates, medical decisions, debt and disaster? I guess it largely depends on whether one sees polyamory a legal variant of bigamy/polygamy, or as an openly honest form of the extra-marital affair of old?

I personally am still torn over the matter. If I were to truly let myself love, emotionally and physically, more than one person I would want to contribute to their wellness, happiness and material needs too. Whilst this would not in itself make me love my bonded partner less, it would be to their detriment as my investment of time, energy and resources would have to be split between the two. And surely, this would be compounded should my bonded partner also shared another love.

So what is the answer then... the answer to our perpetual need for more and for different, on all levels? Poly? Swinging? Renewing the investment into our bonded relationship to make it more fulfilling? Devoting ourselves to one, but enriching our personal lives with non-sexuals, non-fantasy friendships? I know some couple who re-invent their bonded mates into the unknown, exciting new person through role-play and imagination. Illicit correspondance, furtive rendez-vous, sexual encounters in socially dangerous circumstances....

Or are we supposed to stop chasing the rabbit and decide that the humdrum of our existence is inevitable and unchangeable? Personally, I don't fancy the martyr role, others may feel differently.

It's an answer I don't hold myself, unfortunately. For now though, I would aim for the re-investment, and possibly, if a level of trust, honesty, openess and understanding was ever restored with my life partner, then swinging might be, as we say, the hot sauce on today's meatloaf... If we needed it *grins*.

If the re-investment, the re-invention of my bonded partnership does not happen then it shall have to be dissolved. I do not for a minute believe I am entitled to all, but I am entitled persue my own life and happiness. Life is not a dress rehearsal.