Spread Love: No less than freedom.
Freedom in love. Freedom in everyday life. The freedom to do what you are meaning to do. But what is this meaning and what distinguishes it?
Since our society guarantees a certain degree of freedom, it is up to the individual self whether he/she decides to receive the dose of self-sufficiency offered to him/her in gratitude or to ask for more. But asking for more always seems so greedy. Most people are therefore very easily satisfied with what society has to offer them. In addition, the need for freedom varies from person to person.
Each person sets the limits of his/her own comfort zone - one might think. However, the experiences have an uncanny influence on exactly this comfort zone. It is shaped by early childhood experiences, the search for recognition, acceptance and so on with the parents, later with friends, at school etc. The boundaries thus change as a result to the socially desirable understanding of boundaries.
It is therefore up to them to decide whether they want to spend their whole life on a "safe" terrain or whether they want to risk a look beyond the border(s). As a rule, the unknown initially causes fear, discomfort ... It irritates. Nobody likes to be irritated. Why should you?
Freedom in love
Love. Love offers so much potential for tragedies, dramas, but also inspiring and wonderful moments that can go beyond human imagination. But why does it scare us first and foremost? Why are there more and more people who describe themselves as relationally disturbed and see this quality as a shield for themselves in the daily struggle within interpersonal relationships? One example of this is the steadily growing number of single households in Germany.
If one already appears armed and in a defensive attitude to a conflict, how can one hope for a harmonious outcome that fulfills both parties? You harvest what you sow. Everyone has fears, are insecure, long for acceptance, recognition and affection. Down with the walls, we all share the same suffering.
How is it that in our society to this day a continuous competitive thinking has manifested itself? And this despite the fact that we live in an affluent society in which everyone is cared for. In interpersonal relationships, every form of recognition is yawed for, as if it could only be obtained in rationed doses and in return for a love card. Yet the war is over ... Well, in love the war seems to be a permanent state.
A state. This also characterizes the society in which we live excellently. We are always talking about states: the right state, the wrong state. Singles are of course always in the wrong state, because being alone is not enough. Who likes to be alone? Therefore one is more "on the lookout" than one admits to being completely convinced of this independent, free, creative and for a personal development very important state.
After all, people prefer to call themselves "job-seeking" rather than "unemployed". The word "seeking" in this context implies at least the current attempt to remedy this "false state". And in addition, one gives one's environment to understand that one is aware of the actually sad situation and of course does everything to conform to the social tenor again. Thank God.
Love on the front page
However, there are other socially welcome rules that need to be observed. Monogamy is the showcase concept number 1. Over the centuries it has failed and yet it has been found to be good. Only communism can keep up, which is characterized by a beautiful basic idea, but in reality fails regularly because of the implementation. But what could be the reason?
There is hardly anything as fragile and yet as strong as love. It is something so valuable and although its source is inexhaustible, it is ambitious. But everyday life could be so much nicer if it were more and more filled with love. Day after day the media shows off horrible headlines: Sensational, pessimistic, cruel ... The title page is rarely sacrificed for love and only if it is a (mostly aristocratic) fairytale wedding.
Walt Disney couldn't have put the royal couple in a better light. So it's no wonder that people think in fairy-tale castles. But why are there always only two people, primarily man and woman, who make up an honourable and noteworthy love story?
Why don't we celebrate a group of people, no matter if 3, 4 or even 5, who nevertheless form a sincere, desirable and at the same time fairy-tale connection? Well, there are too few of these groups, or they are reduced to the pursuit of sexuality, but not the pursuit of love. This could at least be an explanation.
Many people are pissed off by the thought that one could be happy with several partners. With several? How is that supposed to work? Doesn't somebody necessarily pull the short end of the stick? Does one then speak of love at all? Isn't love something exclusive that can only be reserved for one partner?
No. Love is infinite!
Not only infinitely beautiful or infinitely cruel, but simpley: Infinite. In the best case scenario, a mother loves each of her children equally. A best friend can be closer to you than your own partner or mother. Relationships cannot be expressed in grids and do not function according to prefabricated rules.
The desire for more.
Every person has individual needs and these must be taken into account and respected. This alone results in countless forms and types of love. Facets of the fellow human being. Monogamy has manifested itself as a guiding concept in our society. People do not question it, they live it. They want it or they don't know it any other way. How can they? They submit. If you learned in your earliest childhood that the princess is only allowed to choose one of the hot princes and has to conform to this decision until the end of her life, then you don't contradict this ideal for the time being. After all, you want to be a good princess.
But princesses also read books, travel or once in their lifes meet a person who shows them relationship concepts or alternatives that they would not have thought possible. At least not in reality, although they have already appeared in their dreams and wild fantasies. Outside the cover of monogamy, there must be something else. Polyamory is that more. It celebrates what monogamy demonizes. A sexual exclusive right is foreign to her, at least not limited to one partner.
On an emotional level, too, one moves here on multi-layered terrain. Perhaps this is already the answer to why society reacts to alternative relationship concepts in a rather irritated or inhibited way: Mental overload. Because if an open relationship or even a polygamous relationship presupposes something, then that is communication, openness, honesty, concessions of jealousy and the willingness to face the most uncomfortable feelings, to live through them and to find a solution.
It is not so easy to break through habitual patterns and be described as "strange" or "selfish" because one questions cultural concepts or dares to speak out loud what some think and dream even more: The desire for more (... than one partner)! After all, love cannot be experienced alone. Self-love, yes, of course. But too much self-love makes you lonely in the long run. Love for others, on the other hand, does not become less if you distribute it generously.
Okay, normal and admittedly
However, in the society which we live, it’s good manners to be sexually loyal to a partner. It is as if emotional closeness only manifests itself through sex and gives the partner some form of security. Well, maybe the security of not getting infected with sexually transmitted diseases, but that’s it. Otherwise, there is hardly anything monogamy can save you from. How should it. Ultimately, the monogamous relationship concept guarantees neither openness nor sincerity. On the contrary. Sex and love are put on the same level: Love is thereby devalued, sex, on the other hand, is upgraded. But that is also a matter of opinion. After all, there are enough people for whom an emotional bond is indispensable in order to get involved sexually with someone. That's okay too. And normal.
Admittedly: Of course it is a nice feeling to know that you are the only one and thus untouchable in the life of the other. But shouldn't we first and foremost strive to be in harmony with ourselves so that we don't feel threatened by another person so quickly? So that we are not dependent on "external safety factors"? It would be the ideal state, I am aware of that. It requires a lot of work and self-reflection, I am also aware of that.
But maybe it's worth the price!
Photo by Kilian Amrehn