Friday, February 18, 2005

Under the moonlight (the serious moonlight).



I made some comments about monogamy/ployamoury on the last post. A few comments passed and I decided to stick with this for a moment.

I also received an email message which I have edited down to the essentials:

I checked out your site. Read your blog about
infidelity vs. monogamy. It's not really infidelity versus monogamy, it's more like exclusive versus non-exclusive forms of amorous relating. I have never "cheated" on anybody ever and I never would. I believe in promises kept. I also believe that we should THINK about the promises we make. When we do that (when I do that) I see cracks in the facade, darling. People's EMOTIONS and BODIES (the same thing?) are what seem to dictate most choices in the realms of Venus and I say lets do away with the semantic shackles and just be with one another for the sake of itself; for the sake of ourselves.
This also helps you see people as unique persons, not roles (girlfriend, wife etc) to fill holes (loci of unintegrated psychological malfunction, also known as neurosis, also known as Goetic Demons). If I meet a smart person I can talk to, I will talk. If I meet a funny person I can laugh with, I will laugh. If I meet a sweet person I can relax with, I will relax. If I meet a sexy person who turns me on, I'll kiss her. Expect the same. No more. No less.

Please comment more on this subject. This back and forth is making my own ideas clearer to me, plus it's fun to consider alternatives to things that seem so real like couplehood, capiltalism, mortality etc.

Joe Nolan


Anonymous Guinevere said...

it makes me feel very uncomfortable when people say, "MY" and are referring to me in a possessive sense. It's gross. If i am going to be posessed, let it be by a beatific vision or something. At my last job, all the guys always said, "MY girlfriend this, MY girlfriend that" and i never learned the girls' names. I have noticed that my role-model couple in the clarinet player and HIS wife the cellist always refer to each other as "larry" and "barbara". Like the other day, he was telling me that he jumped out of a third story window once in high school to impress "barbara" and the same day i told her i like her earrings and she said, "Larry gave them to me". This is instead of, "MY husband gave them to me" which is why i like them so much. the end

1:48 PM  
Anonymous Teri said...

In my extremely unscientific, stereotypical, and biased opinion (although there is lots of scientific evidence to support it), by nature women seem to tend more toward monogamy, and men toward multiple partners. Evolutionarily and biologically this makes sense in terms of parental investment. Now, ‘marriage’ is a societal institution, mostly outdated, but even without its existence people tend to gravitate toward some form of partnering. I studied relationships and marriage in depth in my anthropology classes, and learned that even in societies where everyone is raised to believe that polygyny is the norm, that the women continue to be jealous of their husbands’ affection for his other wives even though the presence of other women means less work for them. Not to mention there are no known polyandrous societies, as far as I know. How surprising. : ) In some societies there are group marriages and alternating marriages that seem to work pretty well for both partners, but even in those there is a very established, understood commitment (marriage) between the various members, so one could say that that is also a form of ‘possession’. Anyway, the point of my rambling is that I see this “utopia” as being more of a utopia for men, not for women. I also fail to see how commitments or agreements equal an attempt to possess. But perhaps I’m missing your point.

3:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home