Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Sorry, you do not have a permission to add a question, You must login to ask question.
visual artist | writer | filmmaker
I completely agree with you.
For the record, by ‘non-institutionlaized’ I do not mean ‘orderless’ or ‘laissez faire’ kind of relationship with no structure/rules/’anything goes’ modus operandi. There can be no progress without order.
What I mean is that whatever is decided, be it structures, practises, goals, etc, would be a corroborated function between the 2 partners involved minus external social constructs (i.e. unrealistic family exceptions, peer pressure, parochial religion, etc.).
In short, such a relationship would be the most honest and rewarding with highest levels of commitment because it would be those in it primarily steering the wheel.
A correction though (forgive me if I wasn’t clear), by ‘post-marriage/religion/institutionalisation’ I mean the existence of relationships better & more fulfilling than those in the current state. In such an advanced state, unlike what you described, BOTH parties in a relationship will be happy and mutually build each other. Yes, as you so rightly put, in many situations the women in marriages suffer most. But then again, this in itself is an irony since marriage is supposed to be a union of 2 people who love each other and a union no-one is forced into … which begs the question, if I am suffering, why am I/did I get married?
The answer is back to everything I described – people entering marriage with false expectations usually coupled with a sense of selfishness. Usually, it is ‘what can I get from this?’ as opposed to ‘what can I give?’ and ‘what can we build together?’.
In my opinion (& personal experience/preference) a healthy relationship is one where those in it are in it by pure choice – if I do something for my partner I do so not expecting anything but simply because I ‘choose to’ because I love the person. This is what I call a ‘post-instutionalized relationship’, where relations are organic, natural, sincere and co-created.
I would say to anyone, marriage is not a must nor is a relationship with anyone. You can remain single & do what you want. However, in my above described relationship one would still do whatever they want because they would be with the RIGHT person who forms a powerful duo with as opposed to a person who pulls you down or you feel you need to ‘submit’ to.
Gadaffi tried this then ‘the West’ killed him.
I’d say matters sex are very personalised (not ‘personal’) which means the genesis of solution should be firstly from the individual.
In my very short life-span thus far on earth, I have discovered that sex is complex because it traverses 4 elements that make up a human being – physical, emotional, psychological & spiritual/essential (that which pertains to the essence or ‘soul’ if you like).
Also, most people fail to realise that sexual energy and hence sexual well-being is in constant flux. It only makes sense if you consider the above (4) elements. Most sex-related problems arise from (falsely) assuming that sexual well-being is static.
I will not say more, but leave you with these 2 scenarios to ponder in the hope that they will shed light towards an answer for you:
a) If I am physically attracted to a woman then, say, later learn she has an obnoxious character (i.e. treating staff in a hotel disrespectfully, selfishness or being mean to children) I lose interest and even do not find her attractive anymore which is interesting because she hasn’t physically changed. This implies a change in the essential (of the 4 above).
b) you said “many women feel that sex is unrewarding, uncomfortable or painful” this is true and it will surprise you that it also applies to men. What is ‘rewarding’ to you? This question implies an expectation one has prior to having sex which would be an emotional or physical satisfaction, or both. ‘Uncomfortable & pain’ could be physical or psychological – this means there’s a barrier that needs to be overcome (for psychological) e.g. past trauma, etc.
The world is changing. The world is in constant flux.
I don’t know how it is in your country but I guess it is the same everywhere. We are in the information age. Information velocity is increasing at an increasing rate (this post is itself testimony to this – 20 years ago I would not have been able to interact with a person in West Africa from my laptop – firstly because I wouldn’t have a laptop, secondly because of terrible internet speeds).
I’d say, build your own experience – don’t wait to be hired to do this. Brand yourself as an individual and sell your skills as you (as you garner more skills). Eventually those who would want to employ someone would come looking for you, a time at which you will have bargaining power.
The days of sitting behind a PC and sending out numerous job applications are long gone. That is now tantamount to shooting in the dark and hoping to hit the target. Social capital is the answer & networking is its fuel. Hack this.
If you do not like how the table is laid, turn the table.
All the best!
The short answer is no.
I may sound like a very cold person but this is my reality – I have 0 tolerance for betrayal. This does not mean I hold a grudge, oh no, disloyal people don’t deserve that space & time. It simply means I act swiftly & decisively on those who harm me or others in order to prevent a repeat. This is very important.
Do not confuse this with ‘revenge’ – no. Revenge is retributive and out of spite with no pragmatic purpose. What I speak of here is more teleological and effective – learning from your botched interaction and avoiding a repeat occurrence the same way you’d say, not lend a friend money because he did not pay back the last time you did – here there is no grudge nor is there retribution, it’s pure logic. You learned that he is incapable of handling money and therefore made a decision to avoid a repeat case. That’s all.
You have to realise something, in this world there are people who are totally ruthless and will not hesitate to take advantage of your kindness to their benefit.
From next year I won’t be in the youth bracket anymore but I will say, in my short life thus far, I have encountered some of the most devious individuals. And the interesting thing is, there are still more devious & colder people I am yet to interact with. That is life. Be prepared.
PS: Do not lose a wink of sleep over the cold & ruthless instead learn to survive.
I say ‘sexual benefits’ already says a lot about what most people think of sex …
For me sex is not a benefit. Sex is sex. A friendship/relationship of whatever sort is defined by the 2 people in it and it does not become lesser/greater because of sex/lack thereof.
Why most relationships collapse is because most people think sex is ‘an offer’ you give the other person (esp. women) & ‘a gift/reward/conquest’ you get (esp. men).
In my view, sex is should be a mutual communion between whoever engages in it and this goes beyond the physical, emotional & psychological – it is (should be) an essential (pertaining to ‘essence’/soul) climax of expression of love between 2 human beings. Anything short of this is but a cheap transient lustful anticlimax rife for failure as are most relationships today.
I find friendship a lot like riding a bicycle … the more you think about it the more likely you lose your balance and fall off.
In my experience, the most genuine form of friendship occurs naturally, when you seem to be putting too much effort then there’s something amiss. Do not get me wrong, I do not mean that friendships are all rosy, no. There will definitely be tough times but during such the friends involved would brave it together without focusing on the friendship but rather the solution.
I hear you Daisy and in fact agree. Nationalisation can’t take place with the current government. We need to first replace the leadership to a competent one. Nationalized services are the best in a progressive economy.
Privatisation is not about services but profit (capitalism in pure play) so if we rely on it as we are basic needs will always be out of reach for the ordinary citizen. In America public healthcare is functional and better than private healthcare. This again is because the leadership is competent and non-corrupt. We need to get to this level in Kenya. Once we have a stable leadership with nationalised services the private sector will have no choice but to lower their costs in competition.
Privatisation of basic services is a risky settlement to make for any economy. One day I’ll write in detail about it and how it can lead to an eventual auctioning-out of a country (case study, Zambia).