It's All In The Fruit
I've recently been having this ongoing debate with a male friend about the validity and viability of transitory/temporary relationships; Relationships that are entered into on the mutual understanding that it is finite, i.e, will more than likely/definitely end within an allotted amount of time. (I'm not talking about 'Holiday Romance's' although the same arguments might still apply...)
In writing my response to our latest email exchange, I found myself to be attacking it with the vigour of a woman possessed. So, rather than keeping it between us I've decided to post it up for y'all to read.
Before I do, if anyone is particularly interested in sexual economics or narratives, then I really recommend that you read, Premarital Sex In America - How young Americans meet, mate and think about marrying By Regnerus and Uecker. It’s a huge bit of research (interviewing over 17,000 18+'s from different cultures/races/religions/political/socio-economic backgrounds) and has thorough statistical evidence as well as anecdotal. It will appeal to those who like facts and detailed analysis.
[A couple of things to note: throughout my response, I reference this book a few times as ‘PMSIA’ and when I say ‘you’ I don’t mean you personally or him, I mean the universal ‘you’.]
Are we sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin...
So, the first thing I would say is that on the surface, a 'transitory' approach to relationships can be seen as a way of meeting a 'need'. A bit of harmless fun, perhaps? A way to pass the time? However, I think that there's a dark side to this that never gets called out. What can appear to be about two adults agreeing to conduct a relationship of mutual benefit, is really about, 'using you for what I want at this moment in time, whilst absolving myself from all responsibility should you end up hurt as a result.' No? Selfish is a sticky word.
How can you know for sure that either of you won't become emotionally attached? What about the gender dynamic? Especially if sex is involved? Hardened, second-wave feminists might disagree but it’s well known that, as hard as we might try, most women can’t have sex like men.
PMSIA puts it like this: “The double standard in sex is real and quite durable, and there’s only one effective way to resist it – and that is for women to attempt to feel and think and pursue sex like men. Plenty attempt this, but only a minority can sustain it…Women may enjoy sex as much as men do, but on average they don’t pursue it as often or for the same reasons”
The superficial ‘reason’ may be that I want ‘Mr Right Now’ rather than ‘Mr Right’ or ‘Mr Potential’ but more often than not this is not the case and it’s this, that men at least need to consider when getting involved in a ‘with benefits’ arrangement. That's not to say that the same can't happen in reverse, as dramatized by Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher in No Strings Attached (2011)
“But we’ve mutual agreed!”
What is mutually agreeing when your heart’s involved? - “I promise to only fall for you to this degree?!”
You can't know what the other person is thinking or feeling. No verbal understanding will ever unpack that. What if you do meet someone who you actually really like and want to keep hold of? They might be sticking to the ‘agreement’ and so in that case, too bad…
Obviously there are exceptions, people do make it ‘work’, but to what extent and at what cost? Unless there are further shifts in the sexual economy, aren’t they just exceptions rather than the rule? What about the long term? How does it impact on one’s ability make and sustain a committed relationship/marriage? You can pretend that you might care about them for a short amount of time, but a repeated pattern of this sort of relationship could mean that you are unable to commit or attach properly - should you want to. It’s like feasting on junk food your whole life and then expecting to complete a marathon whenever the urge takes you.
It's less likely to happen.
So, if it’s not about becoming attached or developing ‘feelings’ then it becomes purely about meeting a physical ‘need’? An appetite that can never be satisfied but that demands to be indulged. If relationships are ultimately reduced to physical intimacy without context or value, then surely people become the same – cheap - and if people are cheap then relationships are also. This commoditization of sexuality will only serve to enhance the already individualistic culture we live in. People will start (and some might say, already are) living to a different narrative and only enter into relationships for 'what they can get.' If we go bigger picture, this will mean that less and less people will be born into or raised in a stable environment. This impacts on individual growth, aspirations, development and ability to sustain relationships, which in turn has a wider impact on society.
It’s the whole Socrates argument: "what if everyone in the world acted like me, what would be the consequences...?"
The fact that our actions are unrelated to the rest of society is a lie. What you do, affects other people/contributes to the wider sexual climate and has financial implications for the Tax Payer (on a crude level). If the price of sex and physical intimacy are low and available everywhere, then no-one has to work at getting it, which also means that no-one will particularly value it and so the cycle of disembodiment continues. Just a thing we do with other things with no-one feeling secure enough to be vulnerable or attach.
Socrates - Greek Philsopher
This does sound extreme and yes, as young people we never believed it would last forever but now as adults?
I keep saying it but no-one likes to feel used.
And anyway, isn't there always that intrinsic sense that you want to be the person that is fought for? The person that is so amazing that there is no way anyone could ever let you go? Having a relatively high sense of self-worth, I know I'm not satisfied by a relationship that inevitably (key word) ends with someone discarding me once I no longer meet their requirements.
Entering into something with wreckless abandon, deciding to be exclusive and seeing where it goes is different.
Then it becomes about mutually exploring one another, respect, getting to know the ins and outs of someone, appreciation, adoration, commitment, and loyalty until one or both sides feel that the relationship has run out of mileage...or not.
Values or otherwise, the healthiest and most loving way to conduct a relationship is to be selfLESS. If your behaviour cannot be described as any of these things, then you are just setting yourself up to potentially hurt someone – EVEN if they have said no, ‘use me, use me!!’ (which is essentially what someone is saying when they agree to this sort of transaction.)
Selfish or selfless? We can all choose or we can push through patterns of behaviour as though they are widely acceptable, thus contributing to the many sexual narratives that people live by. As PMSIA puts it:
“Unfortunately, many well-meaning adults and educators want so badly to dismantle the double standard (i.e women should be able to have sex like men amongst many other behaviours) that they work to normalize any and all consensual sexual relationships, rather than considering whether common experiences of sexual regret are in fact telling us something”
Listen to the regret and learn. Make different choices! Empathy and bigger picture thinking are essential when it comes to our interactions with one another.
Relationships, when done well can be complex, intricate, exhilarating and wonderful because let's face it, we flourish when we are truly loved - it's all in the fruit.