marriage

Postmodern Love

By in foolosophy, marriage, socmed, technology

What’s good about both the Stanford study and the durability of even not-so-cool sites like eHarmony is that being proactive about connection is no longer viewed as unromantic or loserish. Somewhere along the line, enough friends and friends-of-friends started meeting cool people and even falling in love to make the “Let’s just say we met at the deli” cover story moot.
But as eHarmony’s new campaign makes clear, love — or even a really good hookup — isn’t always a simple matter of what matches up perfectly on a survey. “What if you were loved for you?” it asks. What if? What if we had a way of finding people who share our interests and like our pictures, so we could be out dancing instead of sitting at home lonely? And what if, along with all the practicality and purposefulness and monthly fees the Internet brings, it turns out we still hope, in our hearts, for something approaching magic?
A friend of mine semi-shamefully admitted to me once that she had tried eHarmony out, like she was half-expecting me to burst out laughing and flash the L-for-loser sign at her. My attitude about online dating has always been, why the hell not? Her biggest complaint about it was that “people lie” about themselves in that environment. Yeah? And? Like they don’t do that anywhere else?
More than half of all marriages end in divorce, and who knows how many serious, committed relationships don’t even make it to marriage before they dissolve. Basically, the odds are overwhelming that whoever you’re currently with is not The One For You. Of course, the biggest problem with that is the idea that people meeting in their twenties or thirties and staying together for several more decades till death does them part is normal, but anyway. The point is, most traditionally-formed relationships are doomed to collapse at some point, so why stigmatize those who want to try to take a slightly more scientific approach to dating?
Most of us probably meet our prospective partners either through work or mutual friends, which in many instances can provide a paltry enough dating pool. Shy people who don’t necessarily enjoy making the social scene are even more screwed. Whereas on the Internet, you can easily find groups devoted to whatever bizarre hobby or fetish you enjoy. Whatever constellation of traits and beliefs are most important to you, there’s almost certainly people out there who match up pretty well with them. Of course there’s much more to a relationship than how it shapes up on paper, but I can’t help but think it’s an improvement to already know you have so much common ground to get started on.

E Pluribus Amor

By in foolosophy, marriage, psychology, sex-you-all

So convinced is Erich of the virtues of polyamory that he feels it will, one day, become the norm. “Fifty years ago pre-marital chastity was unquestioned,” he says. “Now it seems little more than a peculiarity. One day monogamous relationships may be seen in a similar light.”

Yeah, um, I think we can file this away next to hippie communes as something that will only ever appeal to a select group. Personally, I don’t know why anyone familiar with the nuances and intricacies of an intimate relationship, and all that goes into making it work, would want to double or triple the drama, and all at the same time, no less! You crazy kids…
Of course, I don’t doubt there are people who could make it work. I also don’t doubt that most people will never be able to set aside feelings of possessiveness and jealousy over their romantic partners, nor will they be eager to give up the pleasure of controlling someone else’s sex life (even if no one wants to admit we enjoy doing that). As the persistence in the belief in a personal, loving god makes clear, and against all evidence, people want to feel special. Everyone wants to be a unique snowflake. Exclusive relationships may not be able to last for a lifetime, but at least for a while, they can make someone feel like they, and only they, are the most important person in the world for someone else, capable of providing something that no one else can. That’s no less of an addicting thrill than the urge to have sex with multiple partners. Speaking of which…
“Orgies do happen,” he admits. “But they really are not the point of what we do. The point of polyamory is to enable people to have loving relationships with more than one person.”
But why, I ask, for a final time, must a loving relationship include sex?
Erich looks at me. “But why,” he rejoins “Must it not?”
Look. Do it, or don’t do it. There is no “must”. But I think what she’s really asking you, dude, is: is this really about love, or is it just a rationalization for being unfaithful? I mean, let me reiterate, I’m all for whatever consenting adults want to do. But I have close female friends who are smart, attractive, funny, all that good stuff, and I don’t feel the relationships aren’t “loving” just because we aren’t sleeping together. On the contrary, I’m more than happy to enjoy those aspects while avoiding all the drama that comes along with a sexual relationship. The intellectual and/or emotional intimacy is fulfilling enough for me without adding physical intimacy to the equation. Granted, I’m strange like that, and I have a need for a lot more personal time and space than most, so that kind of distance works for me. But still, I think the problem with monogamy isn’t that it’s harsh to expect a person to remain sexually exclusive for the duration of a relationship, it’s that no one seems to want to acknowledge that, even if it turns into marriage, it’s not likely to last much more than a decade, let alone a lifetime. Keeping that perspective in mind from the start would seem to me to make for a happier time together and a less traumatic end.

Flames for a Year, Ashes for Thirty

By in foolosophy, marriage

More than half of all marriages end in divorce. Obviously, there’s no way to even count how many serious relationships don’t even make it to marriage before they, too, fail. And call me cynical, but I’d be willing to bet that even among the couples married for decades, inertia plays just as much of a role as love in keeping them together, assuming they don’t actually hold each other in frosty contempt while pursuing their dalliances on the side for pleasure. Love is real, certainly. Romantic love? Especially as a basis for creating stable, long-term relationships? One of the craziest ideas this species has ever invented.

So why, then, do stories like this inspire so many snide remarks?

He’s an idiot, she’s a gold-digging whore, goes the common refrain. Maybe. But maybe people are confusing love and happiness. Maybe she made him happy for a while, even though he knew that she really didn’t have much in common with a man more than twice her age. Maybe she figured that he was basically a nice enough guy, and combined with a huge fortune, it was pretty easy to be happy with him, too. Maybe they, like a lot of people, feel that settling for flawed, temporary pleasure beats endlessly chasing after chimeras inspired centuries ago by Provençal poets. Maybe marrying for money isn’t quite as pathetic as being forced to stay married because of a lack of it. Maybe the knowledge that she wouldn’t be attracted to you without your money isn’t as hard to accept as marriage based on ♥True Love♥, followed by years of silent suppers, separate vacations, cutting recriminations, dagger-eyed stares, slamming doors and countless nights spent numbly staring at the bedroom ceiling in the small hours.

And let’s not overlook perhaps the most obvious possibility: maybe a lot of people are just jealous because they’ve fucked uglier, nastier people for free.

1 2