I am a fan of Dr Jordan Peterson. In this video, he tackles commitment via addressing polyamory. My comments on poly-anything (open/acknowledged and initially/superficially agreed upon promiscuity among 2+ partners) are this:
the thrill of the added-on new and/or thrill of the game playing required to accommodate multiple combinations of partners (competition scenarios to dishonesty) creates distractions from the work that goes into successful long-term commitment and compensates for individuals’ inabilities to go deeper into a core committed relationship, and/or it energizes and facilitates “performance” (displays of sexual prowess and/or desire) in a society that still equates power/freedom/liberation with promiscuity posturing.
true chemistry, which helps carry a couple over time, is weak/non-existent in too many partnerships due to faulty pairing/selection. social pressures (prowess posturing, bridal industry, shallow happiness trends, affluence posturing) and the infiltration of technology into real life (non physical contact selection, false presentations of self) confuse and undermine real, bio-based, selection. additionally, chemical-based confusion, from birth control meds, which wreak havoc on bio-recognition, to sexual performance enhancing meds, facilitate faux presentations of attraction, fomenting a preponderance of coupling going on between individuals who are not, in fact, truly attracted to each other.
free market societies have further created a roster of worst possible conditions for the finding of truly suitable partners, being financially/ materially entrenched and tracked. we haves become a society that not only accepts rationalization but also academizes and applauds bad choices made, leading to inferior outcomes for self and others, in particular because there is no longer a differentiation between notoriety (error) and fame (accomplishment).
where these issues come to a head is with the offspring. marginalized and exposed to hurtful imprinting, the children are forced to shift within the ever-shifting venn diagrams of new and different commitment posturing by adults who are, by continuous partner pursuit, absent, distracted and stunted as parents by their inability to prioritize their children’s needs
The following is an excerpt from my article, “feminism femininity: my take.” The re-post here is to highlight my pro-commitment position as woman, wife and mother, having been personally experienced and observed for decades, and having come to the conclusion that a goal of life-long commitment to a partner, most especially when offspring are produced, is the best possible life scenario, supported not only via our biology but also fiscally, socially and in practicality for optimum productivity and outcome of self, of partner, and for our human legacies, our children.
Cinderella-wedding day obsessiveness, hash-tagged and pinned to new heights, has skewed partnership commitment focus to self-serving attention garnering via ever more costly, grandiose weddings and all manner of marriage and/or reproduction related celebrations. The deeper happiness of long term committed relationships, which requires positive effort and the giving of self in order to get back in greater measure, is not in line with social media-fueled self-centeredness and materialism.
Partner selection has been psychologically confused by these distractions, and also chemically confused by medical use, in particular chemical contraceptive reliance, * as those seeking life partners are no longer physiologically able to un-/subconsciously recognize best genetic matches, which also helps point to best partner selection. Cell phone attachment, in particular social media addiction, infects users with “grass is greener” fallacies, keeping adults in constant search mode, leaving legions of single, aging adults and broken families in its wake. Feminism, in particular current, new wave feminism, being reliant on negativity towards anything having to do with men and/or traditional relationship constructs, further confuses and undermines the goals and outcomes of selection and commitment (see my feminism/femininity article).
On long-term commitment, there is a great saying that goes something like this: better to read every chapter of a book than just the first few pages of a stack of books.
I have highlighted below the partnership positive statements of the excerpt as well as the concluding statement, for, despite all feminist cries for independence, I have yet to find a single person who does not want or hasn’t attempted a committed relationship at some point in their lives. Life-long partnership remains the ultimate goal. When individuals claim to want “no one,” I believe they are not being honest; at best, commitment naysayers are rationalizing their single status, making do in the most positive and logical way any typical, solo adult would – and perhaps should, given the ever-diminishing options as the years, experiences and “baggage,” fiscal to familial, accumulate.
Partnership Denigration: Feminist negativism, separatism and dissatisfaction breed disharmony between adherents and their partners and family, for Feminism’s collective platform is counterintuitive to women’s very existence as female humans. Feminist negativism, separatism and dissatisfaction chip away in particular at the evolutionarily consistent (aka traditional) familial partnership structure of provider male and nurturer female by damaging the perceptions and self-perceptions of both roles. It seeks to undermine the unifying, cooperative and collaborative co-dependence which defines long-term, partnership – in particular parental partnership – between two committed adults, where skills and focuses are complementary, where efficiency and expertise as illustrated in any successful business paradigm evolve to define two individuals as a successful couple. Feminist negativism, separatism and dissatisfaction attack this positively and organically developed co-dependency via social construct by 1) creating, promoting and perpetuating competitive divides between men and women and 2) by pitting the members of a couple against each other.**
To share and do for each other, which is a source of personal and paired satisfaction and happiness within a committed relationship, has been skewed negatively and come to be viewed as a form of subservience, thanks to Feminist partnership nay-saying. This confuses and diminishes the emotional and physical aspirationality that allow each member of a partnership to evolve a self-actualized contributing individuality. Not only does each individual attain a personal best, but the “sum,” of a couple can far exceed its “parts” when the multipliers of teamwork are manifested.
Feminism, with its sexual empowerment focus (testosterone-reliant, ongoing/multiple partner pursuit, sexual insatiability ideations and displays thereof), also denigrates the value and satisfaction potential of partnership commitment by supporting commitment transience (infidelity/serial monogamy, multiple/broken marriages, multiple partner accumulation). Feminists likewise hold affirmativized regard for the resulting “broken” familial households through 1) anti-male support and 2) sole sustainer (you-can-do-it-all-alone) support, which includes governmental handout facilitation to spur reproduction by singles, and the ideological support of the single lifestyle, where the pursuit of outside others for sexual and social satisfaction is prioritized.
Additionally and, most damaging of all, Feminism 3) fosters the crippling societal climate in which it is OK to default one’s offspring to second tier, incidental consideration. Feminism, with its independence at all costs stance, supports unsustainable reproduction, part of the you-can-do-it-all-alone ideology and foments dissatisfaction from within existing partnerships, where failure is supported via rationales for divorce, infidelity and the romanticization of single parent existence, which is in actuality subsistence. Convenience and the handing off of children to others, whether due to supposed necessity or “bad mom” time-off trends, are framed as normal, harmless and even beneficial. Using offspring as human shields and collateral to manipulate the emotional agendas of factionalized adults has been supported, even in courts of law. And in the war against men, the de-masculinization of our sons in efforts to reign in what is inherently their biological and evolutionary legacy as male humans and providers has become not only accepted but socially and psuedo-intellectually and affirmatively dissected, re-constructed and then championed, which comes at cost to both sexes and all familial constructs.
Has Feminism formulated these solo-reliant platforms to excuse the society-crippling states that are? Is this an affirmativized “personal truth” re-write for 21st c. women, who are selfishly fulfilling their human role as reproducers by self-serving and/or coercive reproduction with unwitting/unwilling males? Is it the rationalization of feminized, anti-domestic, non-giving/sharing women of subsequently failed partnerships, now faced with less comfortable circumstances and single parenthood? Has the current Feminist climate been formulated by and for women, who, once having embraced Feminism’s full-spectrum of anti-traditional role acceptance, wind up unwanted and alone, who, thanks to Feminist’s blame-shifting and tapping into the surging victimhood culture, likewise refuse to accept any personal responsibility for their situations? Are fabled Sour Grapes at the root of current, new wave Feminist individualistic ideology? Can women understand, that one cannot truly win, achieve or possess that which one also despises and seeks to destroy? To win, achieve or possess that which one also despises and seeks to destroy is a construct of war.
* Promiscuity support aka persistent and ongoing, multiple partner pursuit, the legacy of the free love and women’s lib movements of the past century, where the sex act has become fully integrated into casual, immediate and short term interactions among consenting adults.
Women who are consciously seeking a long-term commitment partner, especially if with the goal of procreation, would be well-served to explore aspects of (or full) abstinence and/or alternative contraceptives from reproduction-conducive sexual activity so they are not on chemical contraceptives. This will allow their biological, sub- and unconscious systems to detect, recognize and zero in on a best-suited partner. This will help women stay focused on biological markers over the distracting lures of superficial affluence as markers of suitability (see my HP post entitled Whine Time: the Trend Gen). Important to understand in the quest for best partner, is that providership potential in a mate is not merely the display of affluence displays, but the potential for generating income/affluence (today’s the freshly-killed wild game, dragged in from the forest to the cave). The trajectory of income/affluence generation is generally in line with personal growth potential, marked by 1) the ability to dedicate to chosen causes and work as a goal, not sacrifice; 2) the ability to make choices in life that keep honesty and commitment as aspirational goals, not sacrifices; 3) mental and physical good health and stability (personal preservation inclination); And, simply put, 4) when the “chemistry” in a partnership is “real.” Intense physical connectivity early on forges the bond that helps carry a committed couple over time and circumstance.
** This pertains to a comment I posted at a Ted Talk “What I’ve learned about parenting as a stay-at-home dad” thread. My comment pertains to the inverted parental hierarchy dilemma as I see it (see my previous work on what I call Appeasement Parenting, including an Urban Dictionary definition). I posted in support of the traditional parenting/familial hierarchy, in which the parents – the committed partnership – are at the core and come first. I took issue with the written intro to this talk, featured in the mailing list notification, where it stated this was about a Father who decided to “work for his kids,” and that they were his “new bosses.” Let’s hope it is not censored out. Here is the link to the talk and below is my quip:
I totally applaud parenting viewed as a journey, a learning experience that evolves as our kids grow up and present us with new challenges.
But I so take issue with the written intro to this talk, which appeared in the mailing list email notification. We don’t work “for” our kids. Our kids are not our “bosses.” This inversion of perception, where kids call the shots and are appeased like old royals is a premise that turns households upside down, stunts offspring and compromises the core relationship, which is the parenting pair.
That said, bravo for this couple making the commitment to live so that one parent could be there to parent their children. It is a noble calling and like a well run business, a great partnership premise, where efficiency, dedication and complementary skills build family economies that succeed and fulfill each partner.