Couplethinking

[Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>]

The Elkins warned:

> Oh, I don't like that romantic paradigm.  No, sir.  I don't
> like it at all.

<follow many assertions with which I agree thoroughly>

And yet... and yet...

I am a romantic who firmly believes that a romantic relationship can 
be sustained as the central relationship in one's life, without 
surrendering one's integrity or falling into the traps of whininess, 
sullenness, possessiveness, etc. . . . at least, not too badly.

Various and sundry thoughts:

-Judging from statistics, most married couples do not actually have 
sex all that often.  It's a sexual relationship, but the sexual 
aspect is not all that dominant--certainly not to the extent that the 
Romantic Paradigm, with its dreams of happy spouses bringing one 
another breakfast in bed, followed by ecstatic sexual union and, 
later, a blissful walk through sun-dappled fields with their two 
perfectly-behaved children, suggests.  <braces for onslaught of "I'm 
happily married and have sex three times a day!" posts>

-Romantic relationships are not an outcome of simple addition, 
friendship + sex.  Being in love is a different element altogether.  
I agree that it has entirely too much primacy in our culture--but I 
don't think that is exactly the same thing as our obsession with sex.
 
> It enforces what has always struck me as a very bizarre and 
> artificial notion: namely, that the closest relationship in 
> ones life "ought" to have a sexual element.  If it does not, 
> then it is dismissed as "just" friendship.  
> 
> It also enforces the equally (to my mind) bizarre and artificial 
> notion that a sexual relationship "ought" to be deeply emotionally 
> and intellectually fulfilling.  

Does it have to be an "ought"?  And does it have to exclude flings 
and other fun but not deeply fulfilling (except physically) sexual 
encounters?  I would just say it is preferable--not morally, but 
personally.  Certainly if I'm going to be involved sexually with only 
one person (monogamy being another subject), I'd like the sex to be 
with someone I feel very emotionally and intellectually connected 
to.  Some would argue that it works better to get one's emotional and 
intellectual fulfillment one place, one's physical satisfaction 
elsewhere.

> It causes them start talking in the first person plural, as if 
> they have just been assimilated by some hive-minded alien species. 

LOL!  Now let me disconnect this cable from the mothership and see if 
I can speak my opinion.

Using "we" frequently because one is doing more things with another 
person instead of alone makes sense.  "We can't come, sorry, we're 
going out to dinner that night."

Using "we" for shared interests likewise makes sense.  "We love 
soccer."  "We vote Republican."

Using "we" when what one really means is "she" (or, let's be 
honest, "he"), now, *that* is a problem.  "We love soccer," says the 
woman chirpily, grimly recalling that 30-degree day she spent 
*sitting* *outdoors* because her dh loves soccer and wanted to go to 
a game and is impervious to cold besides.  She (who shall remain 
nameless) should be honest and say "He loves soccer."  And, by all 
means, accompany him to a game--he accompanies her to botanical 
gardens, doesn't he, even though they aren't particularly his thing?  
That's just being a friendly companion and enjoying one another's 
company even if one doesn't enthusiastically embrace the activity.  
But when one begins to pretend that one shares every last interest 
instead of just being a companion, I'd say couplethink has taken over.

> It causes them to become morose if they are not currently sexually 
> involved with anyone -- not because they are sexually frustrated,
> which at least would be comprehensible, but rather, because they 
> aren't a part of a *couple.*  

Yeah, you're certainly made to feel like persona non grata if you're 
single.  Now here's a thought:  maybe these morose people are not 
just buying into a myth, but are *lonely.*  In which case one might 
ask why we don't put a lot more energy into promoting *friendship.*

> It causes previously sensible individuals to start using phrases 
> like "soul mate."

Guilty.  I believe in soul mates.  Sorry.

> It causes people to believe that they can *change* each other.
> 
> Even worse, it causes people to believe that it is morally 
> acceptable, rather than downright wicked, for them to *try* 
> to change each other.
> 
> And even worse, it all too often causes people to *succeed* in 
> changing each other.  And never for the better.

Hm.  This makes being in a couple sound kind of like going to 
church.  And, you know, in some ways the two things are similar.

I go to church because I think I need to be changed.  I want to be 
changed.  I think the people and ideas and music there can change me 
in ways that I *should* be changed.  Sometimes they even succeed.  At 
the same time, I go church because it accepts me as I am.  You can 
call this a contradiction; I prefer to call it a paradox.  ;-)

My closest friends love me as I am.  They also know my foibles best.  
The one who actually has to live with me, it is true, occasionally 
gives in to the temptation to try to rid me of some of these 
foibles.  Fortunately, he's succeeded with some.  (With others, I 
tell him where to get off.  And with some others, he's been trying 
for 12 years without notable success.  You all don't know, because 
you only know me from written communication, that I am an inveterate 
interrupter.  I hope to be cured eventually.)

Amy Z