I'm sure everyone knows and remembers Naughty by Nature's song, "OPP". Those of you who hit up Grae events (www.graegram.com, www.graeenterprises.com - shameless plug, lol)have probably heard it at least once recently and bopped out HARD to it (who's down with OPP? EVERYbody!!) But think about this for a second. Most of us aren't down with Other People's Property...or are we?
The interesting thing that I've noticed about relationships in this day and age is the lack of their true existence - or, rather, people's hesitance to get into them for one reason or the other. I won't go into some of the reasons - I've touched on many of them in previous blogs - but I was reading an FB post that a friend of mine wrote regarding monogamy today and it got me to thinking about how realistic (or unrealistic) it may be.
Are we meant to be monogamous? It's an interesting concept. Monogamy is originally defined by Merriam Webster as " archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime"...and then amended to add a third definition "the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time". Now. I am sure that the original definition of monogamy very rarely exists, what with the divorce and remarriage rate in this country. As for the second definition, this is the more common reference of what people think of when they think of monogamy.
The remarkable thing about my take on this is that I believe in it and yet I don't. It's not in my nature to be with more than one person at the same time. I physically can't do it. I don't really knock anyone that does - I believe in karma so I don't need to knock it, karma'll talk care of whatever it needs to take care of. At the same time, I don't know if I'm meant to be with one person for the rest of my life. I'm so easily bored...I don't know. I always worry that I will become bored with whoever I'm with eventually and ruin the relationship. But enough about that, that's so not an issue right now...
As for OPP, when are you considered someone else's? I mean, the obvious answer to this is when there's a commitment...but is it really still so cut and dry, with all these different nuances to relationships? Like, for example, in an open relationship, how do you determine when one is violating the mutual terms of the relationship? If you're a swinger, do you actually have the right to be mad if the other party hooks up with someone else, even though you established how the relationship was going to work? When is it actually cheating?
My ramblings for today...
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Monogamy and OPP
1 comments:
I love how Webster's redefined the meaning of the word. It goes to show how strong societal shifts can modify our own understand of language.
You make very poignant notes here, and in truth, there is nothing cut and dry about any relationship or the nuances of it. It's like one of my friends said about fidelity and honesty -- these are huge tenets of what is considered the crux of one's relationship, regardless of the type. If you are in a committed relationship, you rely on honesty and one's fidelity to dictate "who you belong to". Open / swinger relationships are a bit more difficult to define because of this -- there is no commitment in place and is only a loosely held set of understandings that can shift at any given moment. In that respect, I'd say no, you have no right to be upset if someone else shows interest and you float in that direction. There are sooooo many ways to cheat, it isn't even funny. Emotionally, physically, mentally... but not everyone makes that deep level of distinction. Some say, ohh, if I sleep with her its cheating, but if I have mock sex on WoW or some similar online means, it isn't. I beg to differ, but that's just me. And in fact, that's the Sag in me deep to the core that makes that kind of note.
I better leave off because my brain will implode if I write any more.. O_o
Post a Comment