Sorting out some promiscuity.
Readership: All
Length: 1,440 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes
To kick things off in this post, I here offer this postulate.
Σ Frame Axiom 7: The natural interaction defines the relationship structure according to which model it fits best, not what you wish the relationship would become.
So let’s consider a few relationships in terms of the nature of the interaction. I’ve drawn a map, shown below, of several basic relationships in terms of the Reliability versus Investment. The graph shows how OR’s fit into the continuum of other relationships, in terms of how much support it can offer you (Security/Reliability), and the size of the chunk it bites out of you (Investment/Impact).
I acknowledge that there are other types of relationships not included in this figure (e.g. arranged marriages, long-distance relationships…), but I think this diagram gives a very good illustration about the nature of the interactions. Finally, I think I should add that, “Not all P, Q, R… relationships are like X, Y, Z…” (NARALT)* [The copyright of this image, and similar images, is retained by the author of this post.]
The vertical dotted line labeled “Out / In”, is the cross-over point between a casual relationship (Out) and real, serious commitment (In). It is important to recognize the level of seriousness that both you and your partner hold towards your relationship. If you and your partner cannot agree to be either casual or serious, then the relationship may default to OR status, if it does not dissolve entirely. Serious minded individuals have a real passion in making love, and wish to be responsible with the risks involved. Serious minded people would do well to recognize that not everyone is as passionate as they are. Some people lack a strong passion that would propel them to become mature and responsible sexual partners, and they see sex as merely a pleasure. Therefore, passion is a key ingredient in building and maintaining a successful LTR. Young kids just like to fool around with sex, and may not even use their heart. But if and when the passion kicks in, they will quickly develop a serious mindset, because expressing that passion becomes an integral part of their personality. After that, they are just trying to satisfy their needs, or trying to get you to satisfy their needs.
The mutual openness of heart, and the possibility of genuine love (as opposed to the mere Tingles or pussy fever) is something very important to consider in determining whether your relationship is an OR, or a FWB. A FWB will have very little emotional investment but a high reliability, whereas, an OR will have something that you just can’t live without (but you very likely can’t live with, either). It’s important to know the difference if/when a partner proposes to have an OR or FWB relationship with you.
Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis star in Friends with Benefits (2011).As can be seen in the graph, FWB and OR’s are on the opposite corners of the graph, meaning, they are fundamentally different in what you give, compared to what you get out of the relationship. FWB is a low cost, highly reliable way to get your pants off, whereas OR’s suck the life out of you, and offer little support in return.
The other difference is that OR’s have more potential for finding or maintaining love with one of your partners, whereas, FWB is most likely to become a “dead-end” in terms of finding a LTR (and also, because of the frequency and ease of sex, it runs a high risk of becoming a single parent).
The reason that FWB’s is unlikely to develop into a serious love relationship, is because of the gap between FWB and the In/Out emotional commitment line. However, I will admit that it is possible for that distance to be reduced under a special cocktail of conditions which include having an equitable SMV, having compatible values and personalities, an increase in maturity and developing a sense of responsibility for the relationship.
The diagonal dotted line labeled “STR / LTR” is the crossover point between Short Term Relationships and Long Term Relationships. STR’s are characterized by either Passionate, Careless Flings (PCF) or making Provision for Desperate Cravings (PDC). There is also a third category reserved for horny idiots, which I’ll call the Bird-Brained Dumb F*ck (BBDF).
On the other hand, LTR’s are typically reserved for relatively more mature, intelligent and emotionally balanced individuals, who are willing and able to give, and graciously open to receive. Mutual reciprocation is a key feature of successful LTR’s, which offer benefits worthy of investment, and offer the hope of a more fulfilling relationship that could endure.
I will also venture to point out (and I’m sure I will offend some people here, whoo hoo!), that relationships in the upper-left corner, such as FWB’s, are stereotypically populated by selfish and/or immature individuals, whereas relationships in the lower-right corner, namely OR’s, are often characterized by people with self-esteem issues, possibly arising from a low SMV or MMV, or having no Game skills. In addition, I would speculate that being in a relationship devoid of commitment would tend to erode a person’s self-esteem.
I believe the apparent popularity of OR’s is the fact that they fill an area on the above graph which had been empty in the past, much like FWB has done. OR’s are considered unstable (low in reliability) because there is, by definition, a huge emphasis on exploring the “options” aspect of the commitment. As other bloggers have pointed out, “more options equals more instability”. Besides the fundamental unreliability of existence, in which your partner could easily and permanently be “stolen away” by his/her other fling, there is also a circumstantial unreliability, meaning that there is always the chance that your partner could be busy with someone else at the time of your desire.
One situation of interest is when the reticence towards commitment is only held by one person in an OR, while the other person would prefer to have a monogamous relationship, but is forced to accept the other person’s terms and conditions if they wish the relationship to continue at all. In this situation, the relationship is not truly open, because the terms of openness was not a free and mutual agreement by both parties In this situation, the person who is coerced to agree to the arrangement needs to make a decision about whether they can really accept sharing their partner with others, or if they would be better off to terminate the relationship and seek out someone else who shares their desire for monogamy.
Another situation of interest is when the partners know each other, and they are aware that they are having relations with the same partners. Provided that no jealousies ensue, this situation is the conventional doorway from an open relationship, to an Open Sexual Lifestyle (OSL), shown by the box on the far right. OSL’s vary widely in terms of social constructs and conditions, but are all similar in that they are characterized by a lifestyle of having multiple partners, and that it leaves a mark on the person’s soul, which is shown by the fact that it is often difficult for many of these people to return happily to the larger box on the left.
A famous Open Relationship that destroyed all. Left to Right: Tupac Shakur, Jada Pinkett Smith, and Will Smith.From looking at this graph, it is easy to see how people could fall into an OR by drifting in from one of the other surrounding regions. These other types of relationships include (clockwise from bottom left)
- The classic ONS, or bar/club/party sex
- Varying classes of Hookups. These commonly utilize internet social networking sites (e.g. Tinder, Craig’s List, Ashley Madison), as a vehicle of exposure.
- Then there is a broad category of situations which all have a unique commonality, which I’ll call “acquaintance sex” (e.g. Party Pal’s, neighbors, coworkers, mailman, plumber, etc., a liaison while on vacation or at a conference, etc.
- The ever-tempting Sex with the Ex (SWTE).
- Coming out of a second marriage, which is more or less the same or even identical to Serial Monogamy (sans legal papers), AKA Marriage 2.0.
- Finally, people of a typically lower SMV who have engaged in “communistic sex” practices within an OSL, such as a socially established polygamy (e.g. a hard or soft harem), co(n)founded hypergamy, prostitution, can “settle for” an OR if deemed necessary or advantageous, or by choice when they are in the right social atmosphere.
* Disclaimer: I am not a sociologist, just a thoughtful, inquisitive person considering the modern state of western society, with it’s rapidly changing norms. I only offer the above structural theory as a framework to characterize the basic nature of things, and to launch constructive conversations over the matters.
