Against the Romance of Relationships
(A weird text I wrote with no 'logical' thinking really...full of internal paradoxes)
After a brief experience in life and relationships, not that I had many, but sometimes enough two or three to understand that something is wrong with them, or in other words, you do not need to eat the whole rotten egg to understand that it is rotten. Thus, I declare today that I am against the romnaticization of relationships, and I go for, vote or choose romance instead, with no attachment to relationship.
Needless to say, anything that the human animal does is related to social forces and social relationships, I am not relating to this basic or original understanding of relationships. When I say relationship I mean this defined, confined, limited, closed and exceptional connection between two people, especially in romantic/semi-romantic connections.
We live in a world that tends to romanticize the particularity of monogamous relationship and even the idea of partnerships in the first place. I used to think like that too, and there is nothing wrong with this idea if you believe in it deep inside your heart, that might have been or have not be broken before. But relationships, especially those which are closed/limited/exceptional, are like food without salt, and is there a place on earth that does not add salt to food? Maybe there is, and if it exists then I rather never even think of moving to live there.
So what’s wrong with relationships?
The answer lies in the three determinist- ontological- concepts of 1) there-is or there-isn’t, 2) now or never, 3) and nothing or all. Or in other words it lies in the absolute (and the violent) enforcement of binarism or binary system of thought on life.
First, when two people meet and they connect on a romantic level, main questions to ask, thus: is there a relationship between us or isn’t? Are we partners, yet? Am I your ultimate love? Can we kiss now?
Second follows the idea of urgency to commitment that is linked to the idea of the once-in-a-life-opportunity and that two people are linked together and if it was to be postponed it, simply, would never happen. So we must pursue and cherish this moment and connect with no second thought, or maybe the second thought comes later, but who is going there anyways!
Third, is the idea of either we are partners or we are not. The ‘not’ could be friends, enemies or colleagues and so on, but any ambivalent possibility is unwanted, such as an open relation, so ‘either you are mine and I am yours, or else everyone goes home’!
Those three elements are widely considered to be the basics of any relationship as if we can not imagine a world with different unbinary system of thinking (at the end even if the no system is a system, so systems will always exist- though in multiple versions).
Deconstruction:
To shake such a system of thought I would suggest the exercise of thinking beyond binarism. It should be very easy it is almost a fun game, so step by step.
To deconstruct the ‘there-is or there-isn’t’ system, that is simply yes/no, 1/0, on/off, lets add the simple element of “yesandno” or half yes half no, or not a full yes and not a full no. Those new elements, using your imagination you can add more, bring into a new understanding of connection between two or more people. So let’s say, I am in love with you but I also do not mind you not being in relation with me at this moment, but at another moment you can be with me. Or what we have is so special to an extent that I am beyond calling it a ‘relation’ but simply love, whether it implies relation or not.
As for the ‘now or never’, again very simple and similar to the first example of deconstruction, where the connection works with no relation to time. Time here is an important element but only as unrelated. So maybe today I want you badly, but tomorrow I might not, and the day after I might, and so on. It does not have to be either we fall in love now or never. It could come later as it could come sooner, as well as it might never come (but even in this case we ca still enjoy sucking clits, screwing nipples, licking backs, crying together over Fayrouz’s song ‘I love you with no hope’-اهواك بلا امل-, biting fingers, emotional manipulation and so on).
As for the ‘nothing or all’, as I already hint before, it implies that either partners have themselves to each other, or there is no relations. The simple answer again to such idea is polyamorous, still there is a kind of ‘relationality’ involved but when combining the other two elements of ontology and time, the idea of constant relation, as in partnership terms, dissolves.
I go for romance without a defined relations. Maybe by saying romance I already implied some sort of relationship, but if that so it should never be close to the ‘normative’ understanding of relations. This is because at the end of the day when you fall deeply in love, nothing else matters except for knowing that the person you love is also in love with you, or content in other relation with someone else. Because real love, as I believe, does not (only) live in terms of the materiality of everyday life, and this thing has nothing to do with age or stage.
Yet, what do I know?
I know I will always choose love.
After a brief experience in life and relationships, not that I had many, but sometimes enough two or three to understand that something is wrong with them, or in other words, you do not need to eat the whole rotten egg to understand that it is rotten. Thus, I declare today that I am against the romnaticization of relationships, and I go for, vote or choose romance instead, with no attachment to relationship.
Needless to say, anything that the human animal does is related to social forces and social relationships, I am not relating to this basic or original understanding of relationships. When I say relationship I mean this defined, confined, limited, closed and exceptional connection between two people, especially in romantic/semi-romantic connections.
We live in a world that tends to romanticize the particularity of monogamous relationship and even the idea of partnerships in the first place. I used to think like that too, and there is nothing wrong with this idea if you believe in it deep inside your heart, that might have been or have not be broken before. But relationships, especially those which are closed/limited/exceptional, are like food without salt, and is there a place on earth that does not add salt to food? Maybe there is, and if it exists then I rather never even think of moving to live there.
So what’s wrong with relationships?
The answer lies in the three determinist- ontological- concepts of 1) there-is or there-isn’t, 2) now or never, 3) and nothing or all. Or in other words it lies in the absolute (and the violent) enforcement of binarism or binary system of thought on life.
First, when two people meet and they connect on a romantic level, main questions to ask, thus: is there a relationship between us or isn’t? Are we partners, yet? Am I your ultimate love? Can we kiss now?
Second follows the idea of urgency to commitment that is linked to the idea of the once-in-a-life-opportunity and that two people are linked together and if it was to be postponed it, simply, would never happen. So we must pursue and cherish this moment and connect with no second thought, or maybe the second thought comes later, but who is going there anyways!
Third, is the idea of either we are partners or we are not. The ‘not’ could be friends, enemies or colleagues and so on, but any ambivalent possibility is unwanted, such as an open relation, so ‘either you are mine and I am yours, or else everyone goes home’!
Those three elements are widely considered to be the basics of any relationship as if we can not imagine a world with different unbinary system of thinking (at the end even if the no system is a system, so systems will always exist- though in multiple versions).
Deconstruction:
To shake such a system of thought I would suggest the exercise of thinking beyond binarism. It should be very easy it is almost a fun game, so step by step.
To deconstruct the ‘there-is or there-isn’t’ system, that is simply yes/no, 1/0, on/off, lets add the simple element of “yesandno” or half yes half no, or not a full yes and not a full no. Those new elements, using your imagination you can add more, bring into a new understanding of connection between two or more people. So let’s say, I am in love with you but I also do not mind you not being in relation with me at this moment, but at another moment you can be with me. Or what we have is so special to an extent that I am beyond calling it a ‘relation’ but simply love, whether it implies relation or not.
As for the ‘now or never’, again very simple and similar to the first example of deconstruction, where the connection works with no relation to time. Time here is an important element but only as unrelated. So maybe today I want you badly, but tomorrow I might not, and the day after I might, and so on. It does not have to be either we fall in love now or never. It could come later as it could come sooner, as well as it might never come (but even in this case we ca still enjoy sucking clits, screwing nipples, licking backs, crying together over Fayrouz’s song ‘I love you with no hope’-اهواك بلا امل-, biting fingers, emotional manipulation and so on).
As for the ‘nothing or all’, as I already hint before, it implies that either partners have themselves to each other, or there is no relations. The simple answer again to such idea is polyamorous, still there is a kind of ‘relationality’ involved but when combining the other two elements of ontology and time, the idea of constant relation, as in partnership terms, dissolves.
I go for romance without a defined relations. Maybe by saying romance I already implied some sort of relationship, but if that so it should never be close to the ‘normative’ understanding of relations. This is because at the end of the day when you fall deeply in love, nothing else matters except for knowing that the person you love is also in love with you, or content in other relation with someone else. Because real love, as I believe, does not (only) live in terms of the materiality of everyday life, and this thing has nothing to do with age or stage.
Yet, what do I know?
I know I will always choose love.
posted by Dayna at
Monday, November 06, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home