Pondering Romantic Love

Society has evolved to view romantic love from only certain perspectives, but perhaps we need to rethink those perspectives.

When you write about sexuality and relationships like I do, inquisitively poking amid the nooks and crannies of people’s sex and love lives, there is a tendency to encounter an array of judgments from people about the many differences one uncovers during the process. Or if outright judgment is avoided, some people will still prioritize those differences in a ranked order of acceptability and correctness, which is also a form of judgment.

While one can’t entirely separate sex from the relationships in which it functions, here I’d like to focus specifically on our perception of the best style of relationship. Admittedly, sex plays a big part in this. But I want to try to keep the discussion here focused as directly on relationship styles as possible.

I’ve read and listened to countless arguments about what types of relationship styles are better than others. Whether from academics, philosophers, or advice columnists, there is no shortage of people ready to tout their preferred style.

Some people in my social sphere who practice a certain style of intimate relationship tend to feel they are somehow doing it correctly. Or while seeming to accept another person’s style as just another variation, privately they believe their way is the best way.

This post was prompted by yet another person asking me about polyamory, my own generalized style of approaching intimate relationships. I say generalized because polyamory is a big-bucket noun for an array of relationship perspectives.

As the person prodded me for information about polyamory, I could sense them attempting to codify the monogamy, non-monogamy, and polyamory styles into a hierarchy of better to worse. Not to mention those three categories don’t include everything in my view. For example, I know solo-poly is typically included within the bigger polyamory wrapper, but I’ve come to feel it’s qualitatively different than other poly styles.

Enter Arina Pismenny’s excellent article, “How to think differently about love,” that offers well-articulated reasons to not only think about love differently, but also to not place various kinds of love on a tiered altar of worship with one version towering above the others.

Pismenny lays out a guide to exploring the various mindsets and experiences of love utilizing various puzzles about love that often arise when we think about love’s true nature.

One puzzle is that of exclusivity which suggests there is just one special person to which we should be love bonded romantically. How often have you heard about someone “finding their soulmate” as if among the billions of people on the planet they happened to find the singular choice. It avoids seeing love on a spectrum that embraces it being equally valuable and passionate regardless of whether it’s between a pair of lifelong lovers or the deep connection between close friends.

Along with the one special person perspective, exclusivity also engenders the notion that love must be eternal if it’s to be considered good. We’re all staring directly into the face of countless parents and friends who divorce or break up, yet we cling to the folly of thinking of their relationships as flawed rather than just no longer fitting the needs of one or both. I can’t imagine how many times I’ve read or heard the words “failed marriage,” an often silly but pervasive way breakups are referenced.

How about unrequited love? Is love any less meaningful or real if it only flows one way?

Pismenny also questions love that we base on certain criteria. For example, one might say they love someone for their intellect and kindness. But what if another person exists who exhibits greater intellect and exponentially more kindness than the person to whom their love is directed? Does that mean the other person is a better match?

Pismenny then dives into the neuroscience of romantic love, how romantic love is tied to evolution, and love being a social construct (nurture influencing nature). Mentioned also are critiques of romantic love itself by the likes of the famed French philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir, who “argued that romantic love reinforces women’s dependency and passivity, encouraging them to derive their identity and value from their relationships with men.”

I strongly encourage everyone to read Pismenny’s article. It’s thought provoking and if everyone took it to heart, I think our social discourse regarding love would be on a better foundation.

Summing up the article is a list of key points:

1. Love is a complex idea with different origin stories…

2. Neuroscience explains the brain mechanisms behind the excitement and longing of romantic love…

3. The dominant evolutionary story views romantic love as an adaptation.

4. Recognising love as a social construct suggests that it’s not an immutable human experience…

5. Our dominant love script reinforces gender roles and power inequality…

At the end of the article Pismenny mentions a concept I stumbled upon a few years back and would like to elevate into the social discussion ether because I think it’s important. That concept is amatonormativity which designates “the widespread assumption that everyone is better off in an exclusive, romantic, long-term coupled relationship, and that everyone is seeking such a relationship.” I don’t agree with the amatonormativity viewpoint. Some people might. But it feels to me like that social narrative is replete with a whole bunch of assumptions that might not apply to everyone and it’s arrogant to believe they necessarily do.

Among the other things discussed is the polyamorist ideology being “intersectional, queer and feminist because it rejects gender roles, heteronormativity and monogamous marriage.” I happen to believe that’s an astute assessment, but does everyone? Probably not.

All that said, the point of this post is to dislodge your notions of a one-size-fits-all approach to intimate or romantic relationships.

Getting back to the person who asked me questions that spawned this post, in the end they wanted me to lay out for them a strong case that polyamory was better and therefore right for them while their lifelong attachment to monogamy was wrong. I refused to provide them with that case. Why?

Increasingly as I read, think, write, and engage in social discourse, I don’t think there’s much in life that supports the idea that there’s one correct way to be or function. Of course, I’m not talking about things that are undoubtedly good or evil. Some stark examples to the contrary, I think most of us can decide quickly if someone or some way of functioning is good or evil. We might not act appropriately on that decision, but deep down we know it.

Taking all this together, my hope is that those of us who want to have discussions about the various types and styles of relationships (and the sex components of some of them) can do so without necessarily judging one as better than another. The polyamorist who judges the monogamist is just as misguided as the monogamist who judges the polyamorist. The solo poly person who refuses to jump on the relationship escalator and judges their single friend who simply chooses a circle of close friends to satisfy their love needs is just as misguided as their single friend judging them.

The bottom line is there is no correct way to love or configure relationships except the way that works best for those involved. It’s all good. The options provide a smorgasbord of choices from which each of us can pick and choose and put together in whatever ways suit our needs at the time.

You can use this link to access all my writings and social media and ways to support my work. My content is usually open and free to view, but for those who are able your paid subscription (click the Subscribe button) or patron support are always appreciated.