Exploring Polyamory

Following a break-up nearly a year ago, this humble blogger has attempted to research and learn as much as she can about Love and relationships. The journey has been a bumpy one, sometimes leading to the formation of new questions rather than the answers to old ones.

One of the new aspects I have been introduced to is polyamory. 

In a previous post discussing types of Love ("Limited Love...?"), I briefly mentioned polyamory as a form of relationship that has been receiving a great deal of attention in the media over the past few years. Surprisingly, though, the latter relationship type has been around for not only decades but centuries.  In fact, an earlier form of polyamory may have indeed been practiced within the free love communities of 19th-century America.

But what is polyamory?
Polyamory is an alternative, counter-culture approach to the conventional monogamous relationship ---a staple of the hetero-normative script. Instead of being limited to two people, romantic affection in a polyamorous relationship is expressed and exchanged between multiple individuals, often at the same time. (The word itself, when linguistically untangled, translates to "multiple loves.")  

So... Are we talking about polygamy? No. Cheating? No. A sexual free-for-all? No!

What is it then?

Thanks to BuzzFeed, I have the following video to offer as an informative introduction to polyamory.

The primary reason for the latter video having been included in this blog post is that it not only addresses some of the most common questions concerning the polyamorous lifestyle --- or, rather, love-style. Because the video is so short, however, I would like to further dissect some of the concerns expressed.

How is polyamory a legitimate romantic relationship style?
According to Dictionary.com, the term relationship means "a connection, association, or involvement"; as well as "an emotional or other connection between people." 

Polyamory is, ideally, an emotional (i.e. romantic) connection and involvement between people. It is a plural relationship, yes. Love, however, is not a finite force. As such, it cannot be restricted or depleted. 

How can you Love more than one person simultaneously?
Again, for the sake of my readers, I must clarify: When I use the word love (with a lowercase "L"), I am referring to the flighty and superficial forms of affection. Such, for example, pertains to crushes. When I use the word Love (with an uppercase "L"), on the other hand, I am referring to the great all-consuming, unselfish force that poets and writers have been trying to characterize for centuries.

Presumably, the majority of us Love our families. Presumably, we all Love our friends. Too, we have Love for all of these people at the same time. And if such is the case, why is it so hard to imagine romantically Loving two (or more) people at the same time?

True, the majority of us were conditioned to believe in the idea of a soulmate, a second-half. There is, however, a counter notion to the latter belief: that we all have more than one soulmate in the world. Even Plato, who wrote the famous dialogue on Love --- "The Symposium"--- did not seem to promote the idea of there being only one perfect 'fit,' or one perfect mate, for each citizen of humanity. Widowed and divorced individuals are still, after all, able to find Love after being separated from his or her original spouse.

How is polyamory different from polygamy?
Watch any documentary about polygamist cults and, more than likely, a common theme that will arise is the oppression of females. Often, there will be mention of forced marriages and child brides. Typically, one man will have multiple wives; and each woman is bound, by her marriage vows, to be faithful and subservient to her husband.

Polygamy, too, is strongly linked to religion. Each of the three Abrahamic religions, in fact, have been or currently are linked to polygamy. Abraham, himself, was a polygamist. So, too, was Jacob... and David... and Solomon...and Muhammad...

Polyamory, as mentioned in the video earlier, is more egalitarian: everyone within a poly relationship is suppose to be given the same amount of respect and value as the other members. 

For the most part, a polyamorous group starts off with a primary couple. Sometimes the couple will be long-term partners who are seeking additional companionship away from the primary relationship. Other times, a married couple will open up their marriage to include other people. 

What separates polyamorous rendezvous from general cheating is that one or both partners will seek out the companionship of others with the full knowledge and consent of his or her primary lover. Such is what is referred to as ethical non-monogamy.

But isn't monogamy natural?
No, there is no scientific evidence to support the theory that monogamy is a natural default for relationships. Actually, it is a general understanding that most humans crave variety. Such could, in fact, explain why infidelity occurs ---even by a person who claims to Love his or her partner. 

It may be easier to argue that, like marriage, monogamy is a social construct.

How can polyamory possibly work?
The same advice that relationship therapists give to monogamous couples for strengthening their bonds can also be applied to polyamorous groups: honesty, trust, and communication. -

First, each individual within the group needs to be honest with his or her self about all personal wants and needs. Obviously, polyamory is not for everyone. And there will, regrettably, be those who will try to use polyamory as a guise or excuse to make sexual conquests. Authentic polyamory, however, requires maturity. 

Too, it requires trust. There is no room for dependency in a relationship, polyamorous or otherwise. Personal space and exploration are important in all forms of Love. Trust yourself enough to stand on your own, and trust your partner to come back to you.

Jealousy is a natural emotion; and, therefore, it should not be feared. When jealousy does occur, it is important that the person experiencing it feels comfortable enough to voice his or her concerns to the other lover(s). 

Just like a seed cannot grow without soil, sun, or water, Love cannot prosper in an environment that is devoid of honesty, trust, and communication.

Recommended Poly Reading
One of the pieces of advice offered in the above video was to "reach out to different sources, and just educate yourself." Through my own research, I have found the following resources to be rather beneficial in the understanding of polyamory.

Books

• The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships, & Other Adventures --- Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy
• Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships --- Tristan Taormino
• More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory --- Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert
• Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy with Multiple Partners --- Deborah Anapole

Articles

• "What Monogamous People Can Learn From The Polyamorous Community" --- Jodi Erin  Rabinowitz
• "The 12 Pillars of Polyamory" --- Dr. Kenneth R. Haslam, M.D.

Videos

• Polyamory / Leon Feingold / TEDxBushwick
• ABC News: "These Polyamorous Parents Put Controversial Spin on Child-Rearing"

"I have nothing to wear!": Contradicting A Common Misconception of Womanhood

Caitlyn Jenner has been a source of mixed celebration and resentment since her debut on the celebrity scene in June of this year, posing on the cover of Vanity Fair Magazine. While there are still those who dramatically mourn the 'disappearance' of Caitlyn's alter ego ---Olympic medalist Bruce Jenner ---she has been well received, overall, by other members of the public. 

Last month, Jenner received the Glamour Magazine's Woman of the Year Award ---much to the surprise of some.

In an interview with BuzzFeed, within days of receiving her award, Jenner was asked to name some of struggles she now faces ---as a woman. To the latter, she gave the following response: "The hardest part about being a woman is figuring out what to wear."

... And so fell Caitlyn's points in popularity.

On November 16th, in response to Jenner's comment, actress Rose McGowan wrote the following message on Facebook:

"Caitlyn Jenner you do not understand what being a woman is about at all. You want to be a woman and stand with us- well learn us. We are more than deciding what to wear. We are more than the stereotypes foisted upon us by people like you. You're a woman now? Well f--king learn that we have had a VERY different experience than your life of male privilege."

As a woman in Hollywood ---more importantly, as a sex symbol in American cinema (Jawbreaker and Devil In the Flesh, to name a few of her movie projects) ---Rose McGowan would know quite intimately how women are viewed and treated by the movie and media industries. At her foundation, too, Rose McGowan has a more thorough knowledge of what it means to be a woman than Caitlyn Jenner ever will.

Where It All Began 
Caitlyn Jenner's comment not only feeds modern misconceptions of women. It also indulges at least one obnoxious stereotype that has been around since Ancient Greece. 

As mentioned in one of my earlier posts on this blog ('Got Transcendence?'), Plato, the father of Western Philosophy, frowned upon everything that pertained to the human body. By focusing on the flesh, he insisted, one compromises the discipline that one needs to transcend the world. And as he considered most women to be too occupied with physical beauty to achieve transcendence, Plato did not think much of the fairer sex.

Through use of bodily decoration, young women were meant to act as billboards for their respective family's wealth and prominence. It was their conditioned and enforced duty to be and appear delicate in the treatment of their bodies. For it is within a woman's body that her uterus is housed; and it was a woman's uterus that was once considered the most valuable part of her being. Marriage, after all, was originally a contract between two men over a womb.

Forced to spend their time learning how to appear beautiful and how to manage households, women were unable to excel in the same intellectual arenas as men. As a default, Plato's theory thrived and evolved.

Eventually, the teachings of the Greek scholars would fall into the hands of the Romans. And from the Romans, the Europeans would adopt and adapt the ancient ideologies for their own halls of learning. 

And thus began the formation and migration of patriarchy into the West.

Where It All Continues
Sadly, not much has changed in over the past two millenniums. Even today, in this age of supposed advancements in gender equality, females are groomed from a young age to believe in meeting certain physical requirements. (Note that the latter words were "physical requirements.") 

With the television acting as the main source of communication and bonding (for families), girls are consistently being bombarded with images of how they are meant to look. What is not made apparent to these impressionable girls, however, is that only a small percent of women ---approximately 5% of the population ---have the natural size and frame as 1980s English model Lesley "Twiggy" Lawson. Even the beautiful Audrey Hepburn, who remains a major fashion icon, may not have had her famous waif figure had she not suffered years of starvation and malnutrition at the hands of the Nazis during World War II. 

Today, girls continue to suffer from starvation and malnutrition; but such is typically self-imposed. Anorexia and bulimia, however, are not unique conditions of the 20th and 21st centuries. In her book Fasting Girls: The History of Anorexia Nervosa, author and professor Joan Jacobs Brumberg stresses that food-refusal among middle and upper class girls is a weight management strategy that has been used as early as the sixteenth century. In her follow-up book, The Body Project, Brumberg also notes that ---though we now live in a day and age where girls have more access to appropriate vitamins and nutrients ---girls are suffering from more body issues and diseases than ever. The cause for this digression, Brumberg proposes, is the increase of the use of media and the pressures exerted by it. 

Girls are taught to value numbers. Or, at least, they are taught to value the number of their clothes and scales over their test scores. In order to fit into the latest fashion of clothing, there are girls who are willing to starve themselves. And such behavior is encouraged by not only history but also a current body-shaming society.

Girls are taught to value youth and beauty. Like the Madonna paintings featured in the Louvre, they are taught (and expected) to look flawless and ageless. Some women, after a certain age, will even seek out particular products and procedures to reverse aging. Instead of celebrating their progression in life, women are encouraged to fear.

We, as girls, are taught that we are our bodies... and little else.

Who We Really Are
I am as guilty as the next female who has ever marched to the beat of the patriarchal drum at least once in her life. The pressures of the media (and society) for feminine perfection are ever-present and ever-suffocating. 

As mentioned in the previous section, we girls are taught that we are our bodies. And as much as this humble blogger may resent what she is about to say, such a belief is --- in part ---true. We are our bodies. But not in the sort of way that society and its propaganda would have us believe.

In her acceptance speech for the Glamour Magazine Woman of the Year Award, Jenner quoted the famous philosopher Simone de Beauvior: "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman."

Not becoming female until her late 60s, Caitlyn Jenner missed out on several feminine experiences: puberty, menstruation, pregnancy, birthing, and menopause. Such, however, are only the biological experiences. 

The biological and social experiences of girls are two sides of the same coin. Each support and reinforce the other. 

Again, from a young age, we females wage war with our bodies ---whether consciously or unconsciously. It is in our ability(s) to survive and overcome each battle that helps make us women.

Actress, writer, and director Lena Dunham (Girls) serves as the best supporting example of the above statement. In an interview with People Magazine last month, Dunham opened up about her experiences with endometriosis and its effect on her body image.

"From the first time I got my period, it didn't feel right. The stomachaches began quickly and were more severe that the mild-irritant cramps seemed to be for the blonde women in pink-hued Midol commercials... If my pain had no tangible source, that just meant my mind was more powerful that I was and it didn't want me to be happy, ever... I saw myself divided like a black-and-white cookie into neat halves: one bright and ambitious, the other destines to wind up strapped to a gurney and moaning for pain meds... I am strong because of what I've dealt with. I am oddly fearless... And I am no longer scared of my body. In fact, I listen to it when it speaks. I have no choice but to respect what it tells me, to respect the strength of its voice and the truth of my own."

Alone, the biological changes that a girl goes though are character-forming. And it is a kind of character-building that Caitlyn Jenner will never have an opportunity to experience. Such experiences make up a large portion of a female's life and thus molds half of her mortal existence.

Personally, this humble blogger has a deep sense of respect for Caitlyn Jenner: She has inwardly and publicly embraced her true self, despite potential ridicule. Not many people, I imagine, can go out of this world saying that they lived genuinely ---having broken away from the hetero-normative script of society to live their own lives, by their own terms. And yet, I find myself standing with Rose McGowan.

If Jenner truly believes that picking out clothes is the hardest part about being a woman, then she knows little ---too little ---about the gender she has chosen to 'join.'

Caitlyn Jenner may, anatomically, meet the qualifications of being a female. And she may also recognize and acknowledge herself as being a female. In terms of psychology and experiences, however, Ms. Jenner will perpetually fall short. She has a long way to go in becoming a woman.

Scripted Insanity

In 2013, a clinical psychologist at Oxford University conducted a study that lead to a disturbing conclusion: women are 40% more likely to develop mental illnesses than males (Ball 2013). 

Depression, anxiety, panic attacks, body dysmorphia. . . The list is devastatingly long.

But how many of these mental illnesses that are developed by women are socially inflicted? Socially manipulated? Emotionally manipulated?

It sounds like a conspiracy theory, I know; but I am not Dana Scully, and what I am proposing is not X-File material. 

Although monstrous, there is hardly anything paranormal about that which I am about to share:

Upon the recommendation of a friend, I recently watched the Clint Eastwood film 'Changeling' (2008). Based on a true story, the movie retells the nightmarish plight of Christine Collins: In 1928, Los Angeles, single mother Christine comes home from work to discover that her son, Walter, is missing. After five long months, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) contacts Christine with joyous news: her son has been found. But when she arrives at the train platform to recover him, Christine is devastated to discover that the boy is not Walter. Upon the insistence of a police captain (J.J. Jones), Christine takes the boy home with her; but she knows that an error has been made. When she confronts Jones, however, Christine is accused of being mentally unstable and an irresponsible mother. Determined to be heard, Christine takes her story to the press. Realizing that a mistake has been made, and the pending embarrassment he has caused the LAPD, Jones has Christine forcefully committed to a mental hospital. While institutionalized, Christine discovers that she is not the first woman to cross the police and be locked away. (For the sake of my readers, I will not risk spoiling the conclusion of the film.)


Society has a long standing history of locking away women who upset the balance; who refuse to conform; who cannot be controlled. The story of Christine Collins, sadly, is but one documented case.

In the days of matriarchal societies, women were highly regarded for their emotions ---their instincts, their intuitiveness. Over the centuries, however, as patriarchy established its reign, our emotions were turned against us. In an attempt to keep its feminine subjects subdued, society began to circulate the ideas that women are fragile and powerless. When some of them attempted to contradict such conditioning, however, these free-spirited females were locked away and/or forcibly reeducated (i.e. emotionally manipulated into submission). 

"You're so sensitive. You're so emotional. You're defensive. You're overreacting. Calm down. Relax. Stop freaking out! You're crazy! I was just joking, don't you have a sense of humor? You're so dramatic. Just get over it already!
. . .
When someone says these things to you, it's not an example of inconsiderate behavior. When your spouse shows up half an hour late to dinner without calling -- that's inconsiderate behavior. A remark intended to shut you down like, "Calm down, you're overreacting," after you just addressed someone else's bad behavior, is emotional manipulation, pure and simple. 

And this is the sort of emotional manipulation that feed an epidemic. . . that defines women as crazy, irrational, overly sensitive, unhinged. This epidemic helps fuel the idea that women need only the slightest provocation to unleash their (crazy) emotions. It's patently false and unfair." (Ali 2011)

Yashar Ali, the writer of the above passage, highlighted just a few of the gas-lighting phrases that society has written and passed along over the centuries. And the epidemic that he refers to, needless to say, still thrives ---although it has, and continues, to take a number of different forms.

For example:

Hysteria
For over three centuries, woman have been strongly linked to a psychological condition called "hysteria." Dictionary.com defines hysteria as "a psychoneurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks, disturbances of sensory and motor functions, and various abnormal effects due to autosuggestion." 

Hysteria is said to derive from the Greek word hysterikós, which roughly translates to "womb." In summary, since the mid 17th century, the Greeks have expressed a belief that disturbances in the uterus cause a woman to act irrationally ---psychotically. In time, the belief found its why into the books and teachings of the European medical community.

Below, I have included a clip from the movie 'Stonehearst Asylum.' Loosely based on the Edgar Allan Poe short story "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether," the underlying theme of the film can be summed up in the form of a single question: 'How can one ever truly know who is mad and who is sane?' Taken from the beginning of the movie, the following scene offers ---I believe ---a troubling but honest recount of how so-called hysteric women were classified and treated by authoritative figures in society.

Drugged. Dismissed. Forsaken. For a woman to speak up, to show the slightest bit of aggression, meant a potential lifetime of incarceration and loneliness. 

It was safer to stay quiet, to be compliant.


Melancholia
Complying, however, has a history of bringing about its own ailment. (Hence, perhaps, the cliche 'suffering in silence.') If hysteria is to be characterized as the loud and aggressive form of female insanity, then melancholia can be classified as the quiet and passive version.

Melancholia, as defined by Dictionary.com, is "a mental condition characterized by great depression of spirits and gloomy forebodings." Today this condition is predominately referred to by psychiatric professionals as depression. At the risk of stereotyping the illness, melancholia may have been the result of a lifetime of suppressed opinions, denied expressions, and forced actions.

Published in 1892, Charlotte Perkins Gilman's short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" remains one of the most famous literary depictions of melancholia to date. Rumored to be inspired by Gilman's own experiences with mental illness, it is the story of a woman who has lived up to her cultural duties of becoming a wife and mother; however, she is discontent with her life. In an attempt to ease her depression, her husband ---a doctor ---takes his wife to their house in the country and locks her away in the attic, to sort through her thoughts. The longer the woman is left in seclusion, however, the more depressed and delirious she becomes. So much in fact that she begins to imagine seeing images of trapped women, much like her, in the decorative paper that decorates the attic walls.

While Gilman and her protagonist both survived their illness (to varying degrees), a number of women have and continue to commit suicide as a result of melancholia, of depression. Sylvia Plath, poet and author (The Bell Jar), was one such victim.

Gender-typed
Patriarchy has supplied its citizens with a script: the heteronormative script. Through social and commercial mediums, people are taught from a young age a seemingly simple layout of actions and events that will lead to success and happiness.

The script is different for each person ---rigidly dependent on an individual's sex and race.

For the first-world female, the heteronormative script typically consists of the following:

Born --> Attend school (maybe college) --> Get married --> Have babies --> 
        Raise babies --> Nurture grandchildren --> Die

Again, it is a simple plan; but in it, there is little room for mistake, alteration, or individuality. If done correctly, however, there should be no reason for a woman to feel sad or incomplete, right?

Charlotte Perkins Gilman undoubtedly had a difference in opinion on the matter.

What fails to be made apparent on the surface of society's plan is the amount of pressure that a female is subjected to ---whether by peers, or by herself. In the United States, for example, girls are constantly being bombarded with images of the so-called perfect body and narratives of how to please men. (Keywords: "to please men.") We are taught to be competitive with other women, for male attention. Also, we are raised to believe that the best day of our lives will be when we, finally, get married. 

Last week, psychotherapist and wellness expert Megan Bruneau published a post on MindBodyGreen.com ---a wellness blog ---titled "Why the Way We Talk About Marriage is Bad for Women."

"Relationships are natural," Bruneau wrote, "and we are programmed to desire connection. Marriage, on the other hand, is a cultural norm."

For those women who don't get married, whether by choice or circumstance, they are labeled social outcasts. For women who don't have children, whether by preference or infertility, they are regard by some people as disappointments. And heaven forbid that a woman is of a different sexual orientation, or if she desires to create a career rather than a family!

We women walk a greased tightrope. To live in a society that is constantly invalidating our wants to be individuals and our needs to express feelings, it is little wonder that we develop mental illnesses!

Albert Einstein once offered the following definition for insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

In order to make the world mentally safer for women, it is time for the heteronormative script to change. As liberated as society claims that we are, it is about time that women cease to be punished for having thoughts and opinions, and the emotions to back them up. Our sanity depends on it!

Works Cited

Ali, Yashar. "A Message to Women From a Man: You Are Not "Crazy."" The Huffington Post-
              Women. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 20 September 2011. Web. 31 October 2015. 

Ball, James. "Women 40% more likely than men to develop mental illness, study finds." The 

              Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 22 May 2013. Web. 31 October 

              2015.

Limited Love...?

Earlier today on MindBodyGreen.com, best-selling author and relationship expert Dr.Margaret Paul uploaded an article titled "Here's What True Love Is (And What It Isn't)" ---this being an unmistakable attempt on her part to correct any media- and culture-influenced misconceptions about the ancient God-like entity. 

Paul began identifying how limited the Western concept of Love is by noting the lack of words we English-speakers have to refer to it. In comparison, she emphasized that the Ancient Persian language has 80 words for Love, and Sanskrit has 96. Modern English society has only one.

Or does it?

Contemporary Concepts of Love
The first place to look for Love remains where it has always been: within the family. The term "family," however, is no longer strictly confined to one's nuclear gene pool. 

Clinical psychologist Meg Jay, in her book The Defining Decade, describes two kinds of families that an individual may come to have: the biological family and the urban tribe. Needless to say, the biological family is the group of people that an individual shares blood-ties with. To put the situation crudely, it is the family that one does not have the luxury of choosing. In contrast, the urban tribe is a tight-knit group of friends. The bond between the individuals is so intimate that they consider each other soul siblings; and thus the potential formation of a bromance or sismance. (Please note: "Sismance" is not a word that is officially recognized by the writers of either Urbandictionary.com or the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. One day, however, it might be!)

The Millennial Generation has become rather fond of the word "bromance" over the past few years. This label, which refers primarily to a platonic love-bond shared between two men, has become attached to such celebrity pairings as Will Ferrell and John C. O'Reilly; Jimmy Fallon and Justin Timberlake; Ben Affleck and Matt Damon; as well as Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Such bond-forming is a demonstration that family, among a few other things, can be fluid. 

Of course, too, there is romantic Love ---that passionate and life-altering emotion that has been idealized and imitated in Hollywood movies over and over again.

Perhaps the focus on Love should not be how many words or references we Westerns have. Rather, it may be best to contemplate on what-in-the-name-of-all-that-is-holy we are doing with it.

Where We May Be Going Wrong
While the Urbandictionary may be expanding its section on modern Love colloquialisms, Dr. Margaret Paul may be right in saying that Western culture has an overall limited (underdeveloped; immature) concept of the actual entity.

Exhibited A: Love, of the capital "L" variety, is still overwhelming limited to the idea that such an emotion and/or ability exists simply between two individuals who are romantically involved with each other. Until recently, the accepted version of Love ---as publicized by the media ---consisted of a heterosexual couple. Due to the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges in the Supreme Court, however, the Love narrative has been altered to include both homosexual and heterosexual pairings. Such in itself is an amazing victory for Western culture.

What remains lacking from the mentioned narrative, however, is the acknowledgement and acceptance of Love existing between more than two people. The topic of polyamory, especially, has been paid a great deal of attention in recent years. As to whether it, or even polygamy, may be "legitimized" by American legislation is still a subject of controversy. 

Food for thought: Since Love is generally recognized as an infinite power, why should it be limited (romantically) to only two individuals?

Exhibit B: Lust and Love, quite frequently, are treated like interchangeable terms. What Paul points out in her article, however, is that there are numerous differences between the two emotions and/or abilities. At the foundation, one is selfish while the other is selfless. 

As a society, America tends to be rather selfish. Whether the general populace recognizes it or not, the popularized non-committal (hook-up) approach to Love falls along the line of Ayn Rand's ideology of egoism. To put it bluntly, we are feeding and encouraging a cycle of sexual usury in an attempt to feel love (the endorphine-induced version) without the hurt.

Unfortunately, the latter narrative is a rather old one. While it may never end entirely, we ---as a society and a culture ---can attempt to curtail its use and influence for future generations.

Exhibit C: Loving another individual is often hard to do when one does not Love oneself. And in the West, we can be rather self-loathing and masochistic. (Anorexia, bulimia, self-mutilation, drugs...)

While the idea of loving oneself may sound contradictory (considering the previous point that I made, about selfishness), it does not have to be. Rather, instead of relying on the age-old idea of finding completion in another person (of finding a mate), we should all invest time and energy into molding ourselves into becoming an ideal mate ---someone we would be proud to date. In fact, we should date ourselves. In Loving ourselves, we can better learn how to Love others. Hurt people hurt others; Loved people Love others.

Marriage: A Tradition Worth Saving?

What is marriage?

A simple question in appearance, perhaps; but it can reel-in numerous, extensive, and exhausting answers. As with many things in this world today, the concept of marriage is almost entirely a matter of perspective.

Anyone who watches American television -especially such reality shows as "Say Yes to the Dress" and "Whose Wedding Is It Anyway?" -may get the impression that the modern marriage is all about living out the Disney-endorsed fairy tale of childhood -with little to no mention of life afterward. What a number of people seem to forget is that a wedding ceremony is meant to last only 30 minutes. A traditional marriage is meant to last for 30 years, at least.   

The following video, created by TED Ed, gives a wonderful (brief) overview of the history of marriage.

 

Marriage, as the above video illustrated, has been around for centuries. It has taken and continues to take many forms -sometimes consisting of more than two individuals; sometimes consisting of same-sex and deceased individuals. 

An additional aspect of marriage that the video points out is that society as a whole holds the monopoly on the idea of what constitutes a marriage. 

So, to amend the question from before, what is marriage in (post)modern America?

Answer: Broken.

Marriage, especially between heterosexual couples, is a failing institution in present-day America. Fifty percent of all marriages currently end in divorce. 

Surely though, because society had a hand in forming the tradition of marriage, it has the power to save the institution from failing altogether.

But, to complicate the matter further, is marriage a tradition worth saving?

Again, answers differ.

A Proposal of Cancellation
In 2012, writer and activist Merav Michaeli gave a TED Talk about the failing archaic tradition of marriage and society's need to do away with it. Please click on the video below to hear her reasoning.

Truly, Michaeli offered a well-founded argument for the cancellation of traditional marriage. From a feminist perspective, the life of a woman who is bound in a traditional marriage is rather thankless and debasing. Even today, living in an economy where both the husband and wife have to work outside of the home to make ends meet, many a woman is still expected to maintain a household -doing the cooking, the cleaning, and the child-rearing -after working eight hours or more a day. 

On occasion, granted, the stereotypical male will look up from ESPN (or Minecraft) long enough to throw his beer bottle into the recycle bin. But help from there is expected to be somewhat limited.

Even if they have never heard of or viewed Michaeli's Talk, it would seem that more and more members of Generation Y are choosing to take part in long-term romantic partnerships rather than getting married.

Perhaps such individuals are victims of broken families, refusing to follow in their (now-divorced) parents' footsteps. Maybe these young people, like Michaeli, see marriage as being archaic and irrelevant. 

Or, maybe, Millennials are too use to throwing something away when it no longer suits them.

A Proposal for Reinvention
Despite Michaeli's insistence that marriage is too broken to be fixed from the inside out, perhaps it can be reconstructed from the outside in. 

To clarify: From the outside, on the sparkly surface, marriage looks like a fabulous affair to be swept up in. Who doesn't like the idea of living out the rest of one's life alongside one's twin flame? Who doesn't like the idea of having a partner to help navigate the obstacles of life with? But, again, that is only the surface. And the surface is what needs to be breached here.

As when dealing with anything sustainable, anything worthwhile, a great deal of dedication and hard work goes into discovering and building relationships. 

Like so many of my peers, I too grew up in a broken home. And yet, somehow, the few successful marriages that I witnessed over the past twenty-five years have helped me become a romantic. My goal is to, one day, have a family of my own -with an established egalitarian relationship between my spouse and I; and, certainly, a few children. 

Perhaps, today, such can be considered rather lofty goals. However, it is my belief that two people working toward a common goal can accomplish a great deal. And, luckily, the most basic marriage only needs two people in order to function, to succeed.

The following, I predict, are the three areas where marriages fail -followed by proposed my proposed solutions.

My List of Three Possible Reasons As to Why Marriages Fail

1. Lack of formed identities. So many people enter into relationships thinking that they will find completion in the form and presence of another person. Instead of focusing on what we want in an ideal mate, however, we need to focus on becoming an ideal mate. (The latter goes for both males and females.) As cheesy as the idea may sound, get to know yourself: build on your strengths and work on your weaknesses. Celebrate your quirks. Date and fall in love with yourself! 

The first marriage a person should look into committing to needs to be with one's self.

2. Failure to communicate. People are more connected than ever; and yet, so few individuals are able to communicate without their iPhone. 

Talk to your partner: check in with them, and make sure that you are both on the same page.

On a deeper level, ask personal questions: What are your goals? Can your goals be achieved together? Can you support each other in your respective goals? What are you both looking for in a relationship? Do you both want marriage and children? Etc.

Discover and dismantle any illusions that may exist between you. Fall in love with your partner, not your idea of who your partner is.

3. The consumerist mentality. As hinted at preciously, much of modern society is sold and treated as being disposable. Once something is broken, people tend to be quick to throw that item away and replace it with something better. 

But that is the difference between objects and people: As the philosopher Immanuel Kant would argue, people are not meant to be thrown away. People, and relationships, are meant to be fixed.

Society needs to stop glorifying divorce as being a quick fix-it-all method.

A Possible Answer
So. . . Is marriage worth saving?

In the traditional sense, no. Perhaps the marriage of old deserves to be put to rest.

Perhaps the tradition needs to die so that something new, something better, can replace it. . . 

Marriage means something different for everyone. Keeping that in mind, for our own personal reasons, we can each decide to let go of marriage and embrace something different; or we can remold the concept into something better.

The ultimate decision is ours, not Society's. 

Gay Marriage: Poking Holes in the 'Anti' Argument

There was dancing in the streets of Austin, and in many other American cities, on the day that it was announced that same-sex marriage had at last been made legal.

Not long after, particularly in the more conservative areas of the United States, protest events were held to demonstrate objection to the Supreme Court's decision. Legalizing gay marriage, to summarize the collective cries, would undermine the sanctity of [holy] matrimony and family.

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) is one such Christian campaign that continues to denounce homosexual marriage as being either legal or moral. On one of its associated websites, in fact, the TFP has listed 10 such reasons as to why gay marriage is "harmful."

Although it is by no means this humble blogger's intent to single out the TFP as the solitary voice against homosexual marriage, I recognize its well laid out list of reasons as reflecting much of the same protests made by similar conservative peoples and organizations. (The most recent being that of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who declined in giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples.)

As such, by using the list as an outline, I need not worry about missing vital part of the issue as I make my counter-argument.


1. Homosexual marriage is not marriage.

"Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses."

Marriage, in the majority of Abrahamic religious cultures, began as a covenant not between a man and a woman; rather, it was a contract between a man and a woman's father. A woman was primarily bought or sold to her spouse, through either a bride-price or a dowry, so that the man had possession of a womb. And in many parts of the world, the latter practice is still played out today.

Love and equality in marriage are relatively new concepts and almost entirely exclusive to Western culture.

Perhaps, it is time for the convention of "marriage" to be re-evaluated and redefined.

2. Homosexual marriage violates the laws of Nature.

"Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law... Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality."

Oh, woe to he who passed theology but failed sexology! Homosexual behavior is prevalent in Nature. It is especially used and practiced by the bonobo -mankind's closest biological relative in the animal kingdom. 

In the world of the bonobo, sexual behavior is used as a means of expressing gratitude (for shared food) and avoiding violence (between group members). Anything from groping genitals to full intercourse is practiced among the members of a group, regardless of gender. And because harmony is key to the function of the bonobo, the use of sex helps the bonds between the group members to become strong and deep.

Clearly, humans have inherited the promiscuous tendencies of our primate relatives. Therefore, would it not make sense that we might have inherited other sexual tendencies as well?

3. Homosexual marriage denies a child either a mother or a father.

"It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent... Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests."

American society at present is denying children of their mother or father, or both. Mostly, this deprivation is caused by the demand of long workweeks. For some, there are not enough hours in the day to be parents. 

And even if there were enough hours available for some, there are people in this world who do not have the appropriate countenance to be parents. The ability to conceive and birth a child does not a good parent make. Children are just as likely to be abused and neglected by their biological parents as they are by adoptive or foster guardians.

Children need attention from adults. In order to develop properly, they need nurturing (i.e. loving) validation. Just as important, if not more, a child needs to grow up feeling safe. And a homosexual couple is just as capable of meeting a child's needs as a heterosexual couple.

Certain members of society may argue that a child needs a mother and a father, but a child is not born into this world knowing what a parent is. As it grows physically and develops mentally, a child learns who the primary figures in his/her life is. He/She learns which parent fulfills which need best. The titles of "Mother" and "Father" are merely that, titles -means of differentiating one parent from the other. A child, again, only needs to know that it is loved and safe. Everything else is irrelevant. 

4. Homosexual marriage promotes and validates the homosexual lifestyle.

  

"In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants... Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality."

Three points:

1. Public morality is a creation of a culture's social contract (see Thomas Hobbes); and as society changes, so too does its contract. If the majority of society is in agreement that the homosexual lifestyle is 'worthy' of validation, then rules will gradually change in order to accommodate the new mindset.
2. Just because someone happens to find fulfillment as another gender or with the same sex does not invalidate this individual as a human being. He or she is still a person who is entitled to happiness and love. And speaking of love...
3. When one considers the origins of the practice and the presently high divorce rate, it must be acknowledged that there is something wrong with the traditional take on marriage. And when something is broken, there are only two options: throw it out, or fix it.

5. Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue.

 "Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s... This is false."

Homosexuality is a civil (i.e. human) rights issue! Therefore, anything that is associated with it is part of the issue as well. 

Homosexuals are a minority group. Over and over again, especially in the 20th century, they have been discriminated against:

In the early days of Hollywood, actors like Clifton Webb (Laura, 1944) and directors like James Whale (Frankenstein, 1931; Bride of Frankenstein, 1935) hid their sexual identities out of fear of being blacklisted in the film industry. 

During the 1980s, the gay community was used as the scapegoat for the rampant spreading of HIV in America -nevermind that everyone and anyone can be a carrier of the virus. They were victims, too! Victims of the virus, as wells as victims of society.

Why do I point such things out?

I do so to highlight the following element: the oppression of fear. Like the American Americans prior to the Civil Rights Era, like the Jewish population living under Hitler's Nazi regime, the homosexual community in America has been continually deprived -over the years -of certain intrinsic rights, by society. They have been denied acceptance; they have been denied safety; they have been denied happiness. 

The ruling in favor of same-sex marriage is but one overdue step in correcting years of social wrongdoing.

6. Homosexual marriage cannot lead to the creation of a family.

"...[S]ame-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families."

Did not Abraham and Jacob, both, use surrogates when it was thought that their respective wives were barren?

Straight couples, due to various complications, sometimes have to resort to "circumvent[ing] nature" in order to have a child. One celebrity couple, Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick, used a surrogate to have their twins. And Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) was conceived through sperm donation.

Also, to restrict the term "family" to refer only to those who are blood-related is ludicrous! Many people find their true family(s) outside of their respective gene pools and amongst their peers (i.e. the tribe). It simply comes down to acceptance, connection, and love. Wherever all three of the latter reside, there is family. 

All humans are capable of accepting, connecting, and loving -regardless of sexuality.
Family does not have to include children. Sometimes, it can just be two people and a pet hedgehog named Hammish.

7. Homosexual marriage undermines the purpose for marriage benefits.

"One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents... Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions... It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage."

The State can decide for itself what is worthy of benefits, and what is not. 

Believe it or not, some people do not get married in order to receive tax breaks or insurance discounts. Some people marry in order to ritually bind their soul with that of another human being's. 

And, as point out in a previous section, homosexuals are just as capable of providing safe and loving environments as heterosexual family units. Therefore, each type of union is equally entitled to the protection of the State.

8. Homosexual marriage is an imposition on society.

 "By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval... In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality."

Historically, society has a way of doing away with something that proves to be an imposition -in one form or another.

No one is asking the conservative Christians of the world to accept homosexuality or same-sex marriage. A number of us are only asking that such factions be moral enough to practice tolerance toward what they do not like or understand.

It is the practice of intolerance that often leads to such tragedies as the Spanish Inquisition and the Rwanda genocide. 

9.  Homosexual marriage is the straw that will break society's back.

"If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior?"

Homosexuality is natural. Period.

Incest has been practiced in societies for thousands of years. King Tut married his own sister. The royal families of Europe have inter-bred for centuries. And, in certain parts of the world today, uncles still marry their (teenage) nieces.

People marry their pets -not always for sex, but so as to cement their companionship.

All these things have happened and are happening still in one culture or another today; and yet, the world has not fallen in on itself... 

Relax: your apocalypse will come another day.

10. Homosexual marriage offends God. 

 "Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it."

By no means do I claim to be a scholar of the Bible. That being said, however, I do recall at least two particular verses:

Luke 6:37 (NIV)
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

Romans 14:4 (NIV)
"Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand."

Surely, someone who loves God does not feel entitled to condemn another human being in place of the Lord...?

If further debate is needed, however, regarding the supposed 'sinfulness' of homosexuality,  please see the chart below.



Conclusion
As an ally of the LGBTQIA (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual Queer Intersexual Asexual) community, I see little to no harm in the recent legalization of same-sex marriage. Rather than tearing apart families, I can only see this progressive move as building more honest family systems. And, once people see the goodness of such a change, once people are willing to look beyond former biases and propagandized lies, it is possible that this new ruling may bring about a stronger sense of community amongst Americans.