Coupledom

Coupledom: “the state of living as a couple, especially when regarded as being interested in each other to the exclusion of the outside world”
Coupledom: “the state of being in a romantic or sexual relationship, the condition of being part of a couple”
Coupledom: “the world and realm of relationships and the experiences related to them, excluding those of polygamists”

Coupled: “Two people joined in a relationship”
Coupled: “To join in sexual union or to marry”
Coupled: “Joined together, especially in a pair of pairs”

When or if (?) the Tories win the next election, they are going to consider offering some more tax incentives for married couples to remain married. Admittedly, they have had to place it within the latter part of their proposed term of office due to the need to sort out the economy, but it is there and will remain an integral part of the Conservative legislation package.
Marriage is back!
“Hoorah!” shout the nervous would-be Cecil Parkinson’s and David Mellor’s who are now worried that placing their names in agreement to such idealism is an open invitation for the skeletons to come tumbling out of the closet (and I still cannot get Major and Edwina sitting in the bath together out of my mind!).

“I believe in commitment and many of us, including me, will always remember that moment when you say up there, in front of others, “it’s not just me any more, it’s us, together” and that helps to take you through the tough times” says David Cameron on marriage.

When the Tories were last in power with their “Back to Basics” campaign, many people were affronted not by their stance on promoting marriage but of the hypocrisy involved in doing so when many were jumping in and out of bed with a range of girls and boys, or should I say men and women for I don’t want to be sued. People were pissed off with them for being such hypocrites. One couldn’t possibly stand there espousing the ‘natural way’ of relationships in the world and then go and have sex with whoever they felt like. It simply wasn’t on.

The real issue is that they came unstuck by attempting to instil a way of life and an approach to family that, quite frankly, is not as clear cut as people make it out to be.
This sort of dictatorial mantra does not conceivably consider the range, depths, situations, personalities within each and every marriage let alone the individual needs of the people involved.
To gather together all marriages in one conformed block is unimaginably stupid, just as it is to say that being in a relationship as a couple is the same for Joe Blogs down the road as it is for me.

The other day, a friend of mine was telling me about another couple who are trying to find some sort of resolution to their relationship. It is clear that they both love each other and have enjoyed an incredibly strong and passionate affiliation over a number of years. One wants the commitment of a shared household; the other just wants her independence as well as an opportunity to spend quality time with her man.
“He wants to do the coupledom thing”, said my friend.
But what does this actually mean?

The Tories would have us think that being part of a couple is akin to marriage. They are the same. A heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman join together for a lifetime of matrimony and it is a done deal. They make a decision and that is that.
But is this really what being part of a couple is all about?
When the marriage vows are taken, do all couples conform to a particular way of life that resembles a specific stereotype? Or is it more the case that different couples can be as diverse as each and every individual in life?

In reality, people do have a notion of what ‘being a couple’ is about.
They have this vision of loveliness and lovie-ness, where roses grow around the white-wood boarded home, where a cup of tea is served to the man as he wanders back in from a hard day at the office. It is the “happy ever after” as depicted in fairy tales, brought to life in the 1950s by Doris Day and Rock Hudson. Oh the irony!

I admit that this is slightly far fetched and people are clearly more grounded than this. People do understand that coupledom is more complicated than this but essentially, if you mention the fact that you are part of a couple, then there is an assumption that you have adopted a certain way of life where the comfort of being together is the essence of life itself.
Even the word “couple” or “coupledom” has an onomatopoeic ring to it, depicting a couch potato style of existence.

But does coupledom have to be this rigid, this predictable and this bland?
Does the mere mention of “coupledom” have to be followed by those who do not subscribe to it with a sneer and contempt?
Could there be a future where being part of a couple does not in any form, take away from the individualism and the individual needs of those participating?

Being a couple is not that bad. Or it doesn’t have to be. Even setting up home together doesn’t have to constrain the freedom of those involved, if only people could get away from the notion of what being a couple is about.

To illustrate my point, I refer back to the quotations at the top of this blog.

The first quote about being together as a couple with total exclusion is an interesting one. On reflection, it all sounds pretty abhorrent “being interested in each other to the exclusion of the outside world”. Yet, if you think about it, isn’t that the expectation of being a couple? One could interpret this not as being devoid of interest in the world but ensuring that the interesting people in the outside world do not come and interrupt or disturb the sanctimony of the couple.
This quote is talking about exclusivity; that one person commits to another for eternity, or as long as the relationship continues, and there is no sexual interaction with the outside world.
As I said, when you look at the quote in plain black and white, it is incredibly frightening. If that is what being part of a couple is all about, then how on earth has there been such a sign-up for it? Maybe it is because most people who choose coupledom do so in their twenties when they have not had a life of experiences that would even question the sanctimoniousness of such an existence.

The second quote is slightly more bearable though; “The state of being in a romantic or sexual relationship”. There, nothing controversial there, is there? It is a simple statement that if you are in a romantic or sexual relationship with someone then, to all intents and purposes, you are a couple.
You are coupled together by your fondness for one another and the fact that you enjoy fucking one another. Getting into bed together, regularly, makes you a couple. Having dinner together, making the packed lunch, going on holiday, sharing conversations, laughing and joking, being intimate. These things make you a couple.
Only it doesn’t say all of that in the quote does it? It can’t because the levels of being a couple and being intimate and sharing cannot be determined in one or even many defining characteristics. It is far more complicated than that.
However, I am trying to make the point that being in this sort of coupledom seems far scarier and less intimidating than the first statement. It is simply an acknowledgement of when two people are together in a relationship then, to others if not themselves, they could be seen as a couple.

The third quote on coupledom is slightly tongue in cheek and comes from the wonderful Urban Dictionary. Coupledom excludes polygamy.
Okay, you cannot marry two people at the same time according to the law of the land.
But this quote says that coupledom excludes polygamy. It doesn’t say anything about coupledom excluding polyamory!

Just because you are completely committed to one person does not mean that you turn off the switch which allows and enables you to appreciate another human being. And this is precisely where the whole idea of coupledom falls crashing to its feet.
Is the expectation of “you can look but cannot touch” a valid and acceptable one? In our target driven world, we are expected to have achievable targets, ensuring that we do not set a target that is unrealistic.
When the world created marriage and fidelity, it had not really considered the intelligences and the working of the mind. It had not thought about societal changes and an ever evolving world.
Can you really ignore and suppress an instinctive reaction to a thing of beauty? Can you honestly pretend that a person standing in front of you is not attractive and attracted to you simply because of the mantra of marriage or commitment?

The instinct of the mind is so frequently suppressed and devalued. It is almost taken as a rule of law that instinct should be ignored in so many situations. That overwhelming feeling of being at one with yourself is another element of life that often takes a secondary position to the practicalities and the so-called norms of existence. Yet, attraction to another human being can be instinctual and it can be right to act on that instinct. Having sex with that person and experiencing the incredible joy and wonderment of that togetherness can elevate you into a place of perfect spiritual wellbeing.
How can this be wrong simply because you have signed up to coupledom with another?

The fact, albeit originally flippant, is that coupledom can be achievable but perhaps there is an opportunity to rethink its very meaning. A polyamorous existence (which incidentally is a word that is not recognised by the God-like spell check on this software) is feasible and does not have to take away from the very positive aspects of being part of a committed couple, as long as everyone knows where they stand and everyone agrees to this way of life.

Coupledom does not have to be boring. It does not have to suppress the instinct of the individual. It does not have to rob the individual of their liberty. It does not have to conform to some fatuous and archaic representation of the word. Being wholly committed to one person for a possible life-time does not mean that life has to be over as far as liaisons and even love with others.
Coupledom could mean exclusivity but it doesn’t have to. Couples could be exclusive with the knowledge that the exclusivity could be breached once in a while but the essential essence of monogamy remains, i.e. a commitment to one other, and I know that sounds completely contradictory but it isn’t.
I rather like the idea of being in a monogamous relationship where the exclusiveness is in the knowledge that I will always be significant to the other person even if he or she decides to spend time and have sex with others.

And of course, one cannot ignore the fact that coupledom, or rather exclusivity, works for some.
That is fine. If they have both chosen that and they are comfortable in all aspects of their relationship, then that is great. It does work for some people. I can think of many ‘couples’ who seem to have an incredibly strong togetherness where it genuinely has and will work for a lifetime.

Let’s get back to the Tories though.
I don’t think they will legislate for my third option of coupledom. I think it may take a little longer to over-ride the bigamy laws in this country. Yet, shouldn’t there be a little honesty in the matter? Shouldn’t people consider their instincts versus their logic?
The Back to Basics Tory ‘philanderers’ were a minority but significant in their numbers. As I said, even the Prime Minister who introduced the phrase had had his own extra-marital relationship. I would hazard a guess that even those who have remained in ‘coupledom’ have at the very least considered the alternative or looked at another human being in a sexual way.
And why? Because it is this that is the natural order of things.
People, in spite of being in coupledom, will have feelings, even fantasies about another existence with other people. They will, in the course of their lives, find themselves attracted to other people. They will enjoy the company of others and will consider the possibility of breaking free from Coupledom, even if it is just a fleeting thought.
The real minority, if we are being totally honest, is with the ones who won’t do this; the people who commit in marriage or in partnership to one person for the rest of their lives, oblivious to others, “to the exclusion of the outside world”.

Of course, to quote another famous philanderer (what a terribly derogatory phrase), “It’s the economy stupid”.
The Tories are far more concerned with finances than the institution of marriage, just as Blair was committed more to ensuring that young women who had babies in their teenage years were not a future burden to the treasury than actually being concerned for their emotional wellbeing.
Unfair? Possibly.
But as with most things, economic factors drive social policy. Marriage and coupledom is encouraged because a stable and secure family is allegedly the best place to bring up children.
The evidence suggests that this is the case but once more, it is not always that clear cut and one can frequently think of cases where the contrary is true.
The real truth is that marriage and the sustaining of marriage is the cheaper alternative for state and the individuals concerned. That is the real reason why marriage and coupledom is encouraged above any other means of living.

There have been two articles in this week’s Guardian on the subject, both worth a quick view.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/05/marriage-tax-systems-family

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/tories-marriage-good-for-society

Finally, I return to my friend and her chat with the man who wanted to do the coupledom thing.
It is quite easy to be dismissive and guffaw at such a notion. Neither party want children. Both are financially independent. Both enjoy flirtations, even full-blown sexual intercourse with others, both enjoy their freedom to sit in their individual houses reading what they want to read, watching what they want to watch, so why the hell should they even consider co-habitation as part of the coupledom thing? It seems ludicrous.

Yet, if they are committed to one another and potentially could be for the rest of their lives, then why not?
Well, the ‘why not’ comes in the acceptance of one another’s definition of coupledom. If either one of them considers that first quote and exclusivity as the definition, then they cannot possibly do the coupledom thing. It wouldn’t work.
However, if they consider a more liberal approach to coupledom, then why shouldn’t they have an excellent and rewarding partnership where the beauty of intimacy can be enjoyed more regularly than it currently is?
What is wrong with wanting to have a strong and committed relationship with another person but also accepting and positively encouraging their individuality and liberty by accepting that they are instinctual and sexual beings, who may like to look, touch and copulate with others?
It’s clearly an ideology that is beyond the contemplation of most but it should not be completely dismissed. It is viable.

They’d have to talk about it. They would have to be honest and explain to one another how they feel. She would have to tell him that she just likes having sex with others. She’d have to tell him that this enjoyment of another human being does not detract from her love for him. He would have to consider if he could cope with this. Yet, isn’t it far more honest than just wondering all the time whether there was someone else in her life?
Possibly, they could share information about other people in their lives. In a truly polyamorous way, they could even share each other’s other people.

I return finally to the quotes at the top of the blog, now looking at the ‘coupled’ quotes.
Coupled means “joined together in a relationship”. Fine – all sounds good. There’s no mention of exclusivity here; no mention of tedium and perpetual boredom. Coupled means “join in sexual union or marry”. Okay, let’s ignore the marriage bit, but the sexual union sounds fine.
Coupled means “joined together, especially in a pair of pairs”.
Now, you are talking my language!