Emotions beyond marriage
Marriage as they say is sacred in India (at least). An institution that classifies a relationship between a man and a woman as pure. What it also does classify any emotion beyond this relationship for the opposite sex as inappropriate, guilt laden and sinful (to an extent).
Having been a person who thinks from heart, I find this hypothesis very unsettling. Agreed that I choose one person over others to commit myself to. But that choice comes at a point of time and time is not a stationary object.
Also, I do believe that all human beings suffer from multiple personality disorders (or orders if you want it to be). With some people our funny side comes out, with others competitive. We find it relaxing in some peoples company and in some peoples company our passionate self comes out. Some people bring out the good in us and some people bring out or worst selves. Over a long period of time, it is possible to see the multiple personalities of the same person as well. However, to put this expectation that all our personalities would be reserved for one single individual is so impractical. Can you imagine if your spouse walks out making you giggle in the morning and then in afternoon is competing with you for a promotion and then is scowling at you in evening for a bad day and immediately is passionate in bed after dinner - all of this in clearly compartmentalized phases with one event not hampering the emotions of the next event? I see that happening only in AI controlled robots.
In practical life, we meet with multiple people and relations within a span of a day and our emotions are invested accordingly. We find it satisfying mentally to discuss poetry with someone. We find it satisfying to see a movie with someone else. We find it satisfying to have a cup of tea with someone. We find it satisfying to share our dark secrets with someone else. We find it satisfying to have sex with someone and we find it satisfying to nurture someone else. You can give the name of marriage to any one or some of these options but to exclusively put EVERY ONE of these into ONE SINGLE person is honestly demanding too much from a relationship.
Hence, comes the question of compromise. Well my spouse is great in bed but we cant hold a conversation - lets adjust. Me and my spouse share a passion for travel but we are not compatible in bed - lets adjust. My spouse takes care of all domestic responsibilities but we don't connect as friends - lets adjust. Compromise becomes inherent in such a social setup. It works in short and medium term but in the longer term, it kills a part of the personality, mostly leading to discontent, regret and depression. Most happy, balanced and stable people I know have a healthy mix of Spouse, children, family, friends, colleagues, hobby friends and "undefined relations" in their lives.
So am I propagating the end of marriage as an institution and a free society with no commitments? Not in entirety. I am proposing honesty in relations. To honestly accept that one person cannot be everything. Every human being has a side of its personality which is most dominant, a need which is most dominant. If you are committing to someone satisfying that personality, be honest to that commitment but don't shut the other emotions. Accept them. They do exist. They wont go away in the name of compromise. Whether you act on satisfying these needs or not, is a discussion that has to be done between you and your partner. But don't live in the guilt that investing your emotions in someone other than your spouse has made you any less respectable human being.
Having been a person who thinks from heart, I find this hypothesis very unsettling. Agreed that I choose one person over others to commit myself to. But that choice comes at a point of time and time is not a stationary object.
Also, I do believe that all human beings suffer from multiple personality disorders (or orders if you want it to be). With some people our funny side comes out, with others competitive. We find it relaxing in some peoples company and in some peoples company our passionate self comes out. Some people bring out the good in us and some people bring out or worst selves. Over a long period of time, it is possible to see the multiple personalities of the same person as well. However, to put this expectation that all our personalities would be reserved for one single individual is so impractical. Can you imagine if your spouse walks out making you giggle in the morning and then in afternoon is competing with you for a promotion and then is scowling at you in evening for a bad day and immediately is passionate in bed after dinner - all of this in clearly compartmentalized phases with one event not hampering the emotions of the next event? I see that happening only in AI controlled robots.
In practical life, we meet with multiple people and relations within a span of a day and our emotions are invested accordingly. We find it satisfying mentally to discuss poetry with someone. We find it satisfying to see a movie with someone else. We find it satisfying to have a cup of tea with someone. We find it satisfying to share our dark secrets with someone else. We find it satisfying to have sex with someone and we find it satisfying to nurture someone else. You can give the name of marriage to any one or some of these options but to exclusively put EVERY ONE of these into ONE SINGLE person is honestly demanding too much from a relationship.
Hence, comes the question of compromise. Well my spouse is great in bed but we cant hold a conversation - lets adjust. Me and my spouse share a passion for travel but we are not compatible in bed - lets adjust. My spouse takes care of all domestic responsibilities but we don't connect as friends - lets adjust. Compromise becomes inherent in such a social setup. It works in short and medium term but in the longer term, it kills a part of the personality, mostly leading to discontent, regret and depression. Most happy, balanced and stable people I know have a healthy mix of Spouse, children, family, friends, colleagues, hobby friends and "undefined relations" in their lives.
So am I propagating the end of marriage as an institution and a free society with no commitments? Not in entirety. I am proposing honesty in relations. To honestly accept that one person cannot be everything. Every human being has a side of its personality which is most dominant, a need which is most dominant. If you are committing to someone satisfying that personality, be honest to that commitment but don't shut the other emotions. Accept them. They do exist. They wont go away in the name of compromise. Whether you act on satisfying these needs or not, is a discussion that has to be done between you and your partner. But don't live in the guilt that investing your emotions in someone other than your spouse has made you any less respectable human being.
Comments
Post a Comment