?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A few days ago, I had a visit from a friend I haven't seen in quite some time. We spent a bit of time catching up on what the two of us have been up to in the past couple of years--her move, my move, my divorce, and so on. She'd heard some of the more lurid and wildly inaccurate details of the divorce, of course--not surprising, really, as it seems like everyone within a three hundred mile radius or so has heard at least something about the situation.

At one point, she said, "Well, it must have been easier on you than on her, because, after all, you've got Shelly."




Now, this is an attitude I've encountered before, and it seems based on a conception of relationships that's quite foreign to me. It's difficult to know where to begin in taking that idea apart, as it's founded on so many tacit assumptions and unspoken ideas about the way relationships work and the way love works that it's hard to know how to start addressing them.

The first and most obvious problem with that idea is that it assumes human beings are interchangeable commodities, like toasters or DVD players. These things provide a service; a person who has two toasters can still make bread if one of them stops working, and a person with two lovers still has sex and companionship if one of the relationships ends, right?

Now, let's step back for a moment and think about that. Suppose a family had two young children, and one of them was killed in a car accident. Would anyone say "Well, it must be easier for you; after all, you still have another child?" I suspect anyone who displayed that level of insensitivity to their loss could expect to get smacked. We somehow know instinctively that children aren't replaceable; a parent who has lost a child is devastated regardless of whether he or she has another child or not. We know this; yet, somehow, it's different if it's a romantic relationship, right?




So why is it that romantic relationships are different? Why does everyone understand that children are not interchangeable, but still assume that lovers are?

For many people, I think the answer is the same as the answer to questions like "Why would you assume that if your partner has sex with someone else, he won't need you any more?" and "Why would you assume that if your lover finds someone who's prettier than you, or better than you in bed (for whatever value of 'better in bed'), it will threaten our relationship." And that answer is related to the reason that peopl are willing to risk losing their jobs to fly out to California and picket in support of Michael Jackson.




These people are utterly convinced of Michael's innocence because they actually feel, weird as it may seem, intimacy with Michael Jackson, even though he's a complete stranger to them and they've never met him.

This sense of intimacy is as false as it is shallow; and it's not limited to Jacko. People feel a sort of wishful, warm fuzzy sensation often--about celebrities, about their partners, about that girl in the next cubicle that they have a secret crush on. This "intimacy" is not really intimacy at all; real intimacy lets you see right through a person and down deep into what Shelly calls their "superhero soul," past appearance and mpast superficial details and into what makes them who they are.

There's a Simpson's episode in where one of the children asks Mrs. Rrabapple, the schoolteacher, "How will we know when we're in love?" The teacher laughs and says ""Don't be silly, most of you will never know love and will marry out of fear of dying alone." Sadly, I do believe that for many people, it's the truth. It seems to me that the world is filled with people who don't want intimacy, who don't like it and don't trust it, who don't take the time to really see their partners' "superhero soul" and don't want anyone seeing theirs. Remove intimacy from a relationship, though, and suddenly people do become interchangeable. Suddenly people do become vehicles for services. Suddenly there's nothing particularly compelling about them; "Well, Betty was a redhead who liked tennis, and Lauren is a blond who likes golf, but basically I get the same thing from both of them. Lauren is prettier than Betty, so I think I'll replace Betty with Lauren." And I think that somewhere, deep down inside, some people realize that they don't have any deep intimacy with their partners; many petty jealousies and insecurities reflect this. "I don't want my partner looking at anyone prettier than me..." (...because, really, there's nothing particularly compelling about my relationship with my partner; my partner doesn't really see me, and yes, my partner would replace me with someone prettier if I let him).




Once you've seen down into someone's superhero soul, once you've cut past all the clutter and really seen someone for all they are and all they can be, then that person becomes absolutely unique and absolutely irreplaceable in your eyes. At that point, nobody can replace that person; at that point, if you lose your relationship with that person, it leaves a hole in your life nobody else can fill.

Of course, there's a cloud around every silver lining. The downside is vulnerability; if you let someone really see you, that person knows you for who you are--good and bad. You're vulnerable like nothing before; your relationship shines a light on all your faults and personal failings and quirks and little neuroses, and to someone not accustomed to real intimacy, I'd imagine that's pretty scary.

Now, you might ask why someone would want a relationship without intimacy, and I'd say "for the reason Mrs. Crabapple said. Fear of dying alone." Even a shallow relationship is better than being alone, no? So people engage in relationships that are more or less interchangeable, with partners who are more or less interchangeable, and they invest a great deal of emotional energy into making sure that their partners don't replace them with someone else--because, hey, then they'd be alone.




Personally, I think that fear of being alone is a lousy reason to be in a relationship. If I had a partner who was willing to replace me because she found someone better looking or better in bed or (god forbid) a better cook than I am, I'd want to find out sooner rather than later. To my way of thinking, preventing your partner from talking to or spending time with other people through fear of being replaced is exactly backwards; if I'm that easily replaced, I want to know, because that's not a relationship I want to invest in. But that pesky fear of being alone is hard to short-circuit, isn't it? "If I lose my partner, I'll be alone, and nothing is worse than that."

Funny thing, though. If you can look at someone and really see them, if you have developed the skills to see another person's superhero soul, you will never be alone--it's not going to happen. Doesn't matter what you look like, or how good you are in bed, or even (thankfully) how good you are in the kitchen.




There is another cloud around the silver lining, though. A person who's unique to you can't be replaced--and that means it does not matter how many partners you have, once that person is no longer in your life, it's going to hurt. Nobody else will make it better. It's not about getting the things you need from your other partners; it's not about having another toaster, so you can still make toast. A partner who is unique is irreplaceable. We know this about children; it's time, I think, we understood this about lovers as well.

Tags:



Comments

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
dilletante
Jun. 15th, 2005 08:07 pm (UTC)
this is a great rant and i totally agree with you.

i still might assume that a difficult breakup would be easier on a partner who had another lover than one who didn't, though, because lovers also often provide strong emotional support. so can close friends or family; but a lover is usually assumed to be closer, and a stronger support. not to say that it wouldn't hurt the same; just that the hurt might be easier to deal with.

of course, that takes a single fact as a gloss of an entire constellation of relationships.
trinker
Jun. 15th, 2005 08:56 pm (UTC)
I found that it depended on the intensity of the relationship that had ended rather than on the presence of other partners -- one of my most devastating breakups was when I was happily enmeshed in other poly relationships.

On the other hand, it *did* help that it felt like less of an "I'm a loathsome being that no one will ever with to be around" and more of a "this relationship isn't functioning any more".
uberjay
Jun. 15th, 2005 08:25 pm (UTC)
I agree with most of what you're saying here, but I think (from my perspective) there is a small truth to a comment like that.

At least you've got a person close to you whom you can turn to for support needs. I don't think there is anything inherently poly in this notion though—close friends may work just as well, but perhaps polyamory allows for potentially closer outside relationships?

Thinking about it that way, as opposed to a "replacement" makes a hell of a lot more sense to me. Of course, that may not be valid for you, and you're the one with the personal experience here, not me. ;)

What do you think?
datan0de
Jun. 15th, 2005 09:40 pm (UTC)
I think you're exactly correct, as is Franklin. I've gotten the "at least you have Kim" comment, and while there's clearly no offense intended, it's insulting in its own way. It devalues the dying relationship and commoditizes all involved. I think it's forgivable when it comes from someone who isn't poly, and in particular when it comes from someone who's single. They're not fully grasping what you got out of the "extra" relationship in the first place, and so are ill-equipped to understand what you've now lost.

While being in a poly relationship may give me another shoulder to cry on when a relationship breaks up, in my case it has also meant that the person I'm crying to has also just lost the same person. So while there's a certain camaraderie and comfort in shared suffering, while going through my own grieving process I need to simultaneously try to comfort my other partner who's also a basket case.

Let's complicate things just a bit further by tossing in the idea that my remaining partner and I are going through this grief differently and at a different pace. This can lead to all manner of weirdness, particularly when, in the end, we end up in different frames of mind with respect to the now-ex. I may end up with an unfillable hole in my soul while my partner is simply bitter. Neither stance is wrong- it's just the way things settle out.

As was mentioned elsewhere, the unambiguously good thing is friends who can provide support and comfort across the board. Sometimes they even end up being new partners. :-)
wilson_lizard
Jun. 18th, 2005 08:46 pm (UTC)
I agree. For me, one of the most complicated parts of breaking up with someone, is in how my husband deals with it. He tends to get angry at the other person, on my behalf... and he resents losing his friends over it. This isn't because I don't want them to be friends anymore, but because he 'knows too much', and wishes he didn't. It sometimes galls him that I remain friendly to them after whatever happened. Plus.. His support in the shouldertocryon department wears thin before I'm ready to stop grieving most times. It's more of a hardship trying to keep it to myself, but I understand where he's coming from. He really does his best to be there for me, but I can tell when it's getting to be too much.
wolfieboy
Jun. 15th, 2005 11:06 pm (UTC)
relationships and alone-ness
I think that being alone is different than loneliness but I could be wrong...

Personally, I don't want to have a relationship without intimacy for the same reason that I don't want sex without intellectual and emotional connection. It's too much work otherwise. If I'm not the deep connections of intimacy, why should I go to the work of having a romantic relationship. I almost wrote intimate relationship there, oops. I tend not to like the term "romantic" since I have too much knowledge of medieval literature to like the term. For me, intimate relationships encompass more than just romantic relationships and speak more to what I mean. But that would sort of miss your point above.
dawnd
Jun. 15th, 2005 11:13 pm (UTC)
I love you and I want to have your babies! What, you don't feel the same way? But, I feel such INTIMACY from your writing. WAAAH!

Seriously, though, as usual, brilliant writing, and right on the mark. When can we expect to see your book hit the shelves? (Not totally kidding here, I think your stuff is good enough for it. I've sure seen LOTS worse out there.) I think I may need a whole Memories category for "Writings by Tacit." ;^)


And to address one tiny point: Of course you and I feel that romantic relationships AREN'T different from any other. But for so many people, the sex, or lack thereof, is the ONLY thing that distinguishes romantic relationships from other relationships. And if one takes that out of the mix as a reason for being intimate with another person, suddenly you start having to face the potential for intimacy with EVERY person on the planet. And when you do THAT, of course, you are--*bang!*-- right back at the fact that, ulitimately, we're all alone. All intimacy is illusory, or temporary, or both. The only relationship you're in for your entire life is the one with yourself. Much easier to keep that artificial barrier of sex or no sex as the determinant of intimacy. Nice and tidy. No need to face being alone, or death. Able to easily label relationships as "good" or "bad."

Anyhow, enough procrastinating, entertaining as it is. Back to work, Dawn!
tacit
Jun. 30th, 2005 05:04 pm (UTC)
"And to address one tiny point: Of course you and I feel that romantic relationships AREN'T different from any other. But for so many people, the sex, or lack thereof, is the ONLY thing that distinguishes romantic relationships from other relationships."

So does that mean you don't love me and want to have my babies?

That's a good point, by the way...
dawnd
Jun. 30th, 2005 08:05 pm (UTC)
*giggle* Well, I "love" you, but I don't want ANYONE'S babies at this point in my life!
arsmemoriae
Jun. 16th, 2005 08:34 pm (UTC)
i'll just have to add you to my friends list after reading this and this post. they're so well-thought and clearly written, and their content is so open-minded and contundent, i can't help but try to keep an eye on your writings.
tacit
Jun. 30th, 2005 05:02 pm (UTC)
Why, thank you, and welcome aboard!
arsmemoriae
Jul. 4th, 2005 07:51 pm (UTC)
thank you ;)
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )