Plainly and simply, the only reason why you can’t forward open marriage as a generalized social practice is that it is complicated. So, if you could make everyone have open marriages, that would solve 87,0317% of the world’s sentimental problems (and salvage the concept of “family” in such a way as to produce social harmony to boot). But the level of maturity required for that to work is such that, in case you had it, you could also achieve peace through any number of other schemes.
To put it differently, it is easy to say that no one owns no one, but difficult to make anyone understand it who had not previously done the understanding by herself. You get everyone saying this and proceeding to act like they own or are owned.
The issue came to mind because i found a very good description of it, a slogan that is very understandable and simple and correct — and still, i cannot bring myself to believe that spreading this slogan would do any good. If one was to lay down this slogan as law over any constantly fighting mutual-hostage-type couple, i just don’t believe it would make then any happier.
The punch line — which i pulled out of a Dilma Roussef interview no less! — and seemingly also happens to be a Frida quote — goes something like this, mangled by my uneasy translation: You might be unfaithful, but you must never be disloyal.
What this is supposed to mean, is that cuckolding and a bit of promiscuity are not really big problems, what is a problem is that the other person does not hold your interests dear, that he fails to respect your perspective in life. In certain circumstances, cuckolding might be a symptom of this form of disloyalty, but i fail to see how it could be the first a given (intelligent) person would notice. In other words, if someone breaks a relationship because he got her with another, the “betrayed” guy wasn’t really expecting loyalty in the level I speak of, and if he didn’t he most likely isn’t even capable of extending such regard towards another human being.
And if you’ll ever understand my point, you can probably already see the problem: most people are not remotely mature enough to grasp what i mean by “loyal”, to say nothing about living it.
So, what can we do? Let all this people die without reproducing? Forbid monogamy and institute global promiscuity? Good solutions, but as hard to apply as open marriages.
Any solution at all that you come up with seems to stumble in this old adversary of ours: Morality. And it might as well be the very root of our woes! The whole spectrum of immaturity i am forwarding as the problem of marriages — jealousy, possessiveness, incapability to cooperate at deep levels — they can also be described as unconscious dependence on morality, or as the inability of letting go of moral concerns when they matter not in life.
And obviously if i was to really go onto that, i’d have to write a whole long book, which turns out to be not very useful regarding the matters at hand, re: healthy relationships, so… Is there no way out? I don’t know. It can’t be that hard. Relax, people. Be soft. Be flexible with your emotions. Do not judge before hearing her version of the story. Do not assume there are rules if the two of you never talked about them. And also don’t make unrealistic rules like “you’ll never look at any other guy’s butts, you’ll never feel attracted to anyone but me” (to believe such nonsense to be possible is to beg for frustration).
Weirdly enough, people will (at least seem to) understand those concerns if you present them as something they can’t see as connected with their own lives, like some “distant tribe” or some “abstract mathematical model”. But you trigger the fear reaction if you make they think of themselves in that circumstance. And then they will fail to understand not out of incapability, but out of pure and spiteful denial.
And it is a shame, because it is not so difficult. It’s just: “please be more mature”. And if I could make people understand that I could save the world.