Why are couple relationships so important for humanity?

[Vynce]

It's quite difficult to think about this questions objectively, since we are all surrounded by partners and people searching for "the one partner". But what, apart from the obvious "kids making process" puts 1o1 relationships on this towering pedestal? 

For me there is literally zero reason, why a female or male should restrict its intimacy to just one other human being. Is a mother only capably of loving just one child? 

Here are some "social matrix" answers I get, when I ask this question (followed by my objection) 

"Its just nice to have someone to talk, when you come home from a stressful day..." Aha, and why can't I work on ALL my relationships to be that trustful and authentic? Why this restriction? Why do you think only this specific human being called "partner" is worthy to relate to? 

"She/he will understand you more than anyone else..." Bullshit. Self-understanding and self-love cannot be delegated to anyone else. This can only happen trough deep inquiry and still observation of ones nature. Especially if the partner herself/himself is not deep in the process of self-understanding, which literally no-one is.

I'm sure this forum will provide more answers in a similar fashion. I strongly believe this conditioned "the one partner"- mindset is created, because most experienced this scenario their entire youth with their parents. But just because it has always been like this, doesn't mean it's useful or natural. 

 

[puporing]

I relate with all your points stated. It's a complex issue that involves much more than just 'overcoming' the interpersonal aspects too (survival element I sense is a big reason of why people continue to choose a more restricted form of love and relating). Like we don't currently have a sure way of raising children collectively that catches those that fall behind (ie, single moms), this means women are more prone to feeling this fear of being left to deal with the consequences - this fear drives people to be very possessive/competitive. I think women are more the driving force behind strict monogamy and it's because of the lack of support for women that is holding people back from considering other forms of relationships. People might rather stay with what they know also than venture out into the unfamiliar, or go through the process of deconstruction/questioning. 

Edited April 2, 2022 by puporing

[aurum]

7 hours ago, Vynce said:

I strongly believe this conditioned "the one partner"- mindset is created, because most experienced this scenario their entire youth with their parents. But just because it has always been like this, doesn't mean it's useful or natural. 

Of course. Strict monogamy is a strategy that humans adapted a long time ago. And for a variety of reasons, it worked.

But now a lot of people are questioning whether this strategy still has merit.

There’s a great new book called Open Monogamy by Dr. Tammy Nelson that I’ve been reading. One of the things she argues for is that couples need to find their place on the “monogamy continuum”. In other words, how much monogamy is right for your relationship?

That could mean anything from an open relationship to “you can’t even look at other people”.

The point is that the relationship structure should exist to serve the relationship. And any structure that accomplishes this, assuming it’s among consenting adults, is worth considering.

Obvious potential shadows of non-monogamy include fear of intimacy, commitment phobia, appeasement of one partner, addiction to novelty, etc. Potential shadows of strict monogamy include just going along with the grain of society, restriction, denial of sexual urges, getting stuck in a routine, etc.

There are also collective issues to concern ourselves with. For instance, does it benefit society as a whole for people to be strictly monogamous?

All this should factor into a holistic, conscious decision made with your partner.

[puporing]

17 minutes ago, aurum said:

Of course. Strict monogamy is a strategy that humans adapted a long time ago. And for a variety of reasons, it worked.

But now a lot of people are questioning whether this strategy still has merit.

There’s a great new book called Open Monogamy by Dr. Tammy Nelson that I’ve been reading. One of the things she argues for is that couples need to find their place on the “monogamy continuum”. In other words, how much monogamy is right for your relationship?

That could mean anything from an open relationship to “you can’t even look at other people”.

The point is that the relationship structure should exist to serve the relationship. And any structure that accomplishes this, assuming it’s among consenting adults, is worth considering.

Obvious potential shadows of non-monogamy include fear of intimacy, commitment phobia, appeasement of one partner, addiction to novelty, etc. Potential shadows of strict monogamy include just going along with the grain of society, restriction, denial of sexual urges, getting stuck in a routine, etc.

There are also collective issues to concern ourselves with. For instance, does it benefit society as a whole for people to be strictly monogamous?

All this should factor into a holistic, conscious decision made with your partner.

That's a very holistic way of putting it! Totally dig what you're saying here. The trick is how we can evolve collectively to a point where all the ways of self-expression in our love life can be respected. Not dissimilar to the discussion of if homosexuality is a valid form of way of being not long ago, but just seems much larger because it would require a larger % of people involved as opposed to a minority. 

[aurum]

3 hours ago, puporing said:

That's a very holistic way of putting it! Totally dig what you're saying here. The trick is how we can evolve collectively to a point where all the ways of self-expression in our love life can be respected. Not dissimilar to the discussion of if homosexuality is a valid form of way of being not long ago, but just seems much larger because it would require a larger % of people involved as opposed to a minority. 

Thank you.

I’d definitely like to see other forms of love normalized beyond strict monogamy. Collectively there will be resistance, but the good news is that those seeking out alternative relationship structures don’t have to wait. Any couple can choose to define and redefine their relationship in a way that suits them. Just don’t expect other people to “get it”.

[universe]

12 hours ago, Vynce said:

For me there is literally zero reason, why a female or male should restrict its intimacy to just one other human being. Is a mother only capably of loving just one child? 

For you and many others.

Thats why many people cheat, re-marry or live the polygamic blues.

As to why the one-partner-structure is so prevalent. Try to tell the average guy you will be fucking others. Chances are his ego can't take it. Tell the average girl you will fuck other girls. Chances are her ego can't take it.

That's it.

The rest

• religion holding peoples hands for them not to inbreed and fall back into savageness
• tradition sprinkling down from parents
• love stories in all forms of art, music, peoms, movies and so on
• forming deeper bonds and having more time for each other
• conformity
• holding jelousy as a true pillar of love

Also play a role but the nr.1 role is insecurities.

 

Why do you want multiple partners tho?

 

[bejapuskas]

@Vynce  I know this is a long word, but have you ever heard about amatonormativity? My aromantic asexual friend told me about this. There are so many things in the media, culture, family, friend groups etc. that push people to adapt this idea of romance. I actually heard somewhere that romance originated as a made up fairy tale thing and only later did it transition into reality of some sort.

But wtf is romance? Second grader would tell you that hugging somebody is romance. It is valid for their experiences, but is it universal? How is your idea of romance or my idea of romance any more universal than that of a second grader? What is the thing that amatonormativity imposes on people.

Maybe romance is just two people agreeing that there is romance between them. 

I am not aromantic or asexual, but the idea of monogamy for life scares the shit out of me. What if I question my sexuality? I have been questioning that so much that I just cannot imagine sticking to a specific person. The only reason I would do that would be if they were just that good and if I did not want to waste energy into this one area of life that is so overhyped while not really providing any opportunities for self-transcendence - how is having sex or talking connected to going beyond reproduction and achieving full potential?

[puporing]

@bejapuskas I am learning so many words and terminologies from you this is great stuff! 

Strict monogamy "for life" is an attempt at the permanence of something deemed beautiful and divine. However, this is an illusion as the divine is impermanent and constantly shapeshifting. Most people realize this at some point in their life and then have to make a decision about it. Some never change their views and still think permanence is attainable some try to go beyond it and begin the questioning. 

[bejapuskas]

@puporing What kind of decision do you mean?

[puporing]

5 hours ago, bejapuskas said:

@puporing What kind of decision do you mean?

Things like attempting to open up an existing relationship, leaving the existing relationship to explore on their own, do/say nothing because of fear and continue living a sub-optimal life that is not serving them well. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by puporing

[patricknotstar]

straight men and women need each others energy and touch  , but yeah I don't think it has to be mutually exclusive 

[Raptorsin7]

@puporing If you had the choice, would you choose to have one partner with whom your love and connection was above anything you could experience with anyone else?

At this point in my life I think polyamory or multiple connections makes the most sense, but I also would prefer one unique connection as opposed to a constant cycling of new people/partners 

[puporing]

@Raptorsin7 Haha putting me on the spot . That is actually such a tough question for me when it may seem like a no-brainer to most.. 

No one's gonna like my answer probably but my ideal is to have multiple long term lovers who are allowed to come and go in my life, whether just in my head or manifested in form (who are also allowed to have other lovers that is). Will it happen? I have no idea and not much hope with this currently (except in my head). I find it very hard to focus just on one person for a long period of time - and I want to be honest about that. I know there's more than one "soulmates" for me and they're all unique in their own ways that I appreciate very much (already has been the case..), and I long to connect with them all from time to time in whatever form (again we're talking hypothetical rather than what is 'realistic'). So the way I see it I will either be serial monogamist or polyam as a result unless some miracle happens, which I suppose is also possible. I guess limited data doesn't help either maybe I just haven't found someone I could be in such attunement with that I'd be okay letting go of others. 

I think because of the degree of awareness of what goes on in myself internally, that makes this question tough to answer. On the one hand, I would love to experience what you describe, on the other hand, I really don't know how that would turn out "in the long run". 

Whatever happens is good and I prefer to just go with the flow mostly. I know I am just looking for "myself" and "home" (ie, God) through these 'lovers' and I happen to take great joy in the journey of finding and loving "myself". 

Edited April 4, 2022 by puporing

[gettoefl]

one thing to understand is that even in polyamory people more often will pair bond, in other words have a primary partner and then each will have additional partners or not as each sees fit

and indeed this has been the model throughout history, us humans are more often monagamish - we pair bond in order to conceive and raise children and then take on others partners as we are permitted to / inclined to

so multiple concurrent partners is not out of the mainstream

[bejapuskas]

9 hours ago, puporing said:

@Raptorsin7 Will it happen? I have no idea and not much hope with this currently (except in my head). ". 

@puporing you sound like what Simmone de Beauvoir calls the daydreamer lol. Thank you for the answer to my question.

[puporing]

1 hour ago, bejapuskas said:

@puporing you sound like what Simmone de Beauvoir calls the daydreamer lol. Thank you for the answer to my question.

Haha, thanks, an overactive mind/imagination is fueling some of this for sure ?. May have a touch of the ADD, they say that makes it difficult to maintain long term relationships too. 
 

[Raptorsin7]

@puporing I think this could work if you lived in a community where everyone was open and free to be with each other, but maybe it could work if everyone wanted the same thing.

I wonder if there is a right way to approach relationships, whatever that way is the way I'd want to do it

[puporing]

@Raptorsin7 Yes I just missed the time that Rajneeshpuram existed ...

It's not completely hopeless, I am finding my own way. Everything is technically negotiable between adults.

I just gotta get used to what it's like being a guy getting rejected 100 times and maybe 1 works.

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by puporing

[puporing]

2 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I wonder if there is a right way to approach relationships, whatever that way is the way I'd want to do it

I mostly agree with Osho's view on it, but we don't live in the world of Osho right now so if one thinks like he does then one has to find their own way..

[Raptorsin7]

27 minutes ago, puporing said:

I mostly agree with Osho's view on it, but we don't live in the world of Osho right now so if one thinks like he does then one has to find their own way..

Yeah, maybe he's right.

But Osho also wasn't conscious enough to detect bs happening in his own community, so I'd take what he says with a grain of salt