I previously wrote about the chronology of friendships. Although the situation has arguably taken a turn for the worse, I still believe that there shouldn't be any first-in-first-served policy. Can the same be said about romantic relationships?
We live in a monogamist society. Two-timers are met with a certain degree of scorn and are generally looked down upon. Well, at least in my circle. I have friends who view those already in a relationship as untouchables. Ashamedly, I do not have such a staunch attitude. I tend to weigh up how attractive the guy is with how well I know his girlfriend. The scales occassionally tip the wrong way.
I suppose, by saying using the word, I've already named the right and wrong for these situations. The question is, what makes romantic relationships distinct from friendships so as to warrant differential treatment?
Perhaps the distinguishing factor is the exclusitivity of romance. Between two lovers, there is no room for a third party. While you can have numerous close friends, you should only have one partner. The entrace of someone new therefore implies that another has lost his/her place. Because of this, one must tread carefully in these waters.
Tread carefully, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's out-of-bounds. Before either party has exchanged vows with another (it admittedly gets more complicated after that), there is still a right of choice. Dating is an opportunity to try things out before the final decision, so it's quite natural to make a few mistakes along the way. These mistakes should be corrected, and if it takes ending one relationship to test another, then so be it. As long as you've weighed up the situation, and think it's worth it.
Similarly goes the other side of the story. Your dream lover may not notice there is someone better out there unless you let him/her know.
Perhaps this makes me sound immoral or inconsiderate. And you are, of course, entitled to different, even opposing, views. There is indeed more to consider in romantic relationships than in friendships. But it's still not an issue of who gets there first. A relationship is not a race.
1 comment:
As you say, romantic relationships and close friendships have to be kept separate. Muddying those waters is a recipe for likely disaster.
But I query your statement of "The entrace of someone new therefore implies that another has lost his/her place." What if there was no romance between the two to start with? What if it was merely an arrangement that was suitable given a specific set of circumstances? Society is well known to place uncompromising expections on people who then go out and fulfil them.
I too will be conformist here and align myself with those that say that individuals should only have one partner. But I will also take the stance that there does not nessecarily need to be a sharp cut-off nor a "grace period" where the person has to be both "not involved with anyone" as well as "off the market". When you are talking about human emotions, there can be no hard and fast 'truths' (though admittedly, life would be so much easier if there was).
Post a Comment