The Multivariate Relationship: Diversity Is Essential to Happiness

[Irifluo]

Hello everyone!

This is the first time I created a topic here. My native language is not English, so there may be a lot of grammatical errors in my words. Please understand. At the same time, I am new here. If my vision is too narrow, please Everyone understands.

 

I very much agree with AUREA that inappropriate dichotomies will have an impact on our community [https://www.aromanticism.org/news-feed/assumptions-and-dichotomies]. For example, some arguments about QPR.

 

I think the relationship between people actually has a lot of diversity.
If I consider the relationships between people, I will not only consider the relationships between the two: sexual attraction, romantic attraction, Plato attraction, friend attraction and other binary relationships.
In my eyes, for the relationship between n people, not only the binary relationship, but also the ternary relationship, the quaternary relationship, and even the n-ary relationship (of course, there are simple empty relationship and unitary relationship).

 

For example, a group of people who are friends between every two, does not mean that these people are a friendly group, and they may not play TOGETHER well. This also shows that multivariate relationship is not just the sum of some binary relationships. The multivariate relationship I will say next is generally not the sum of some binary relationship.

 

Admittedly, there are many words in our language that describe binary relationships: friends, lovers, marriage, parenting, siblings, etc. There are relatively few words describing multivariate relationship: cooperation, group, polyamory, etc.
It can be seen faintly that the tradition of attaching importance to binary relationship in culture is obvious. For example, in the sense of monogamy, most people say that relationship means Relationship Escalator [https://offescalator.com/what-escalator/] from friend to lover to marriage to family.

 

However, mathematically, multivariate relationships are much more complex and complex than binary ones.

 

Of course, for Polyamory [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values_within_polyamory], this is just a kind of multivariate relationship. I want to say the multivariate relationship that I influenced a lot when I was young, it is completely Different from polyamory.

 

When I was a child, I often lived in groups (or groups on the Internet, similar to the community, and many members were active). My childhood was living in such an atmosphere: Play Together.
We attach more importance to the multivariate relationship of the group than we do to the relationship between the two.
We value group relationships very much, so we often play together (not every time every member participates), so we WON'T BE ALONE.

 

In the later years, the small group ended. The end of the small group has its own factors. But the most important factor is: As members grow up, they begin to pursue binary relationsship (especially monogamy Relationship Escalator). This tendency to pay too much attention to (and even to compete with) the binary relationship has greatly weakened the multivariate relationship. This tendency, in fact, can be said that Amatonormativity, is what I do not like.

 

I admit that the mainstream of Amatonormativity and the emphasis on binary relationship, the neglect of multivariate relationship, make small groups no longer have a friendly atmosphere. Because of a person who attaches great importance to binary relationship and saturates in binary relationship, He It is very similar to people who behave and self-enclosed by the outside world. (Say an inappropriate chemical analogy: a stable molecule, behaving like a rare gas, making it difficult to form a large-scale chemical bond like metal.)
I am really Disappointed with this. To be honest, I like the friendly atmosphere(I mean, Friendliness.) very much. I can even say that I prefer to make friends with people than to make friends with person.
I think that multivariate relationship is more stable and freer than binary relationship. Yes, I love freedom very much.

 

However, now, someone told me that you only have two choices: Either love, or be alone.
I think this is unfair and unimaginable.
After all, I have had a childhood, we rely on strong, friendly and multivariate relationship, everyone to play together, very free, not alone - very happy.

 

Of course, not everyone likes strong multivariate relationships like me. Some people may be more eager for freedom, and some may be more eager for warmth.
As the survey results for what aro really wants: 
Everyone Wants Something Different.
[http://www.arocalypse.com/forums/topic/2295-what-do-aros-actually-want-in-terms-of-relationships/]

 

But I never want to see that OUR CHOICE is limited to monogamy, limited to romantic relationships, limited to QPR, limited to self-enclosed.
Either love, or be alone. This is a dichotomy. This is a false proposition.
Relationship is diversity, just like a Relationship Space (Mathematical).
Bertrand Russell said:
Diversity Is Essential to Happiness.

[Mark]

2 hours ago, Irifluo said:

Admittedly, there are many words in our language that describe binary relationships: friends, lovers, marriage, parenting, siblings, etc. There are relatively few words describing multivariate relationship: cooperation, group, polyamory, etc.
It can be seen faintly that the tradition of attaching importance to binary relationship in culture is obvious. For example, in the sense of monogamy, most people say that relationship means Relationship Escalator [https://offescalator.com/what-escalator/] from friend to lover to marriage to family.

Monogamy may be sexual, social, structural or emotional. None of these require the relationship to be romantic.
Other non -romantic ways in which you can see binary relationships lionised include "platonic soulmates", the singular "best friend", even the idea that one-to-one interactions are "easier" than groups.

 

2 hours ago, Irifluo said:

When I was a child, I often lived in groups (or groups on the Internet, similar to the community, and many members were active). My childhood was living in such an atmosphere: Play Together.
We attach more importance to the multivariate relationship of the group than we do to the relationship between the two.
We value group relationships very much, so we often play together (not every time every member participates), so we WON'T BE ALONE.

There appears to be a social expectation that people will "grow out of" group relationships. Even though this is self evidently false.

 

2 hours ago, Irifluo said:

However, now, someone told me that you only have two choices: Either love, or be alone.
I think this is unfair and unimaginable.
After all, I have had a childhood, we rely on strong, friendly and multivariate relationship, everyone to play together, very free, not alone - very happy.

I've seen this kind of idea in quite a few places. Including solo poly, single at heart and, even, aro.
I think, even for an extreme introvert, it's not practical or sensible. 

[Coyote]

7 hours ago, Irifluo said:

There are relatively few words describing multivariate relationship: cooperation, group, polyamory, etc.

 

Also "squad" and "community."

 

7 hours ago, Irifluo said:

When I was a child, I often lived in groups (or groups on the Internet, similar to the community, and many members were active). My childhood was living in such an atmosphere: Play Together.
We attach more importance to the multivariate relationship of the group than we do to the relationship between the two.
We value group relationships very much, so we often play together (not every time every member participates), so we WON'T BE ALONE.

 

In the later years, the small group ended. The end of the small group has its own factors. But the most important factor is: As members grow up, they begin to pursue binary relationsship (especially monogamy Relationship Escalator). This tendency to pay too much attention to (and even to compete with) the binary relationship has greatly weakened the multivariate relationship. This tendency, in fact, can be said that Amatonormativity, is what I do not like.

 

 

Sympathies. And yeah, I think this is an important part of understanding what "amatonormativity" is -- not just the romantic/nonromantic distinction, but also thinking about individual relationships to the exclusion of group relationships. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[Holmbo]

Interesting topic. I suppose I've always thought of group relationships as less important than one on one. When I hang out with groups I can invite people who are just acquaintances but when I hang out with just one person it's most often a close friend.

[eatingcroutons]

On 8/11/2019 at 2:58 PM, Irifluo said:

But I never want to see that OUR CHOICE is limited to monogamy, limited to romantic relationships, limited to QPR, limited to self-enclosed.
Either love, or be alone. This is a dichotomy. This is a false proposition.

I completely agree! Group relationships are a massively important part of my life, and I think it's helpful to lay out the distinction between binary and group relationships in this way. I spend a lot of effort actively maintaining connections to groups, and while I've never had a binary relationship I'm certainly not alone or lonely.

[Irifluo]

On 8/12/2019 at 12:41 AM, Mark said:

Other non -romantic ways in which you can see binary relationships lionised include "platonic soulmates", the singular "best friend", even the idea that one-to-one interactions are "easier" than groups.

Although I knew, it is still difficult for me to understand (or actually, accept) people's tendency about binary relationship. Perhaps in my region, this is also related to the tendency of Jealous and Competition. Sometimes people should tend to cooperate, but they are more inclined to compete, even tend to Sorting out (Is this word appropriate?) their friends, to choose the best one. The tendency to sort is terrible. When people start jealousy with each other, friendliness becomes a distant dream.

 

On 8/12/2019 at 12:41 AM, Mark said:

There appears to be a social expectation that people will "grow out of" group relationships. Even though this is self evidently false.

In addition, I don't think that human nature is competition rather than cooperation. This is more influenced by acquired culture and social atmosphere.
In this society, perhaps in my region, the culture of competition is prevalent – so that partners or friendly relationships are treated as trophies that need to be competitive – and they are always competing to keep the binary relationship from breaking.

On the contrary, the culture of cooperation, the culture of friendliness and group relationship is indeed scarce; although this may make more people happy, and make people more likely to get happiness.

 

 

On 8/12/2019 at 5:07 AM, Coyote said:

Sympathies. And yeah, I think this is an important part of understanding what "amatonormativity" is -- not just the romantic/nonromantic distinction, but also thinking about individual relationships to the exclusion of group relationships.

Inappropriately, I even think Amatonormativity is another kind of Selfishness...

On 8/12/2019 at 3:59 PM, Holmbo said:

Interesting topic. I suppose I've always thought of group relationships as less important than one on one. When I hang out with groups I can invite people who are just acquaintances but when I hang out with just one person it's most often a close friend.

Sometimes, I even like to chat with only one person, because many people around me don't have a group atmosphere for chatting together. But I still prefer to chat in the group.

 

1 hour ago, eatingcroutons said:

I completely agree! Group relationships are a massively important part of my life, and I think it's helpful to lay out the distinction between binary and group relationships in this way. I spend a lot of effort actively maintaining connections to groups, and while I've never had a binary relationship I'm certainly not alone or lonely.

I'm really glad to learn about your situation. And this is also a great encouragement to me for learning that my group relationship is not a special case!

[Irifluo]

 

On 8/12/2019 at 12:41 AM, Mark said:

There appears to be a social expectation that people will "grow out of" group relationships. Even though this is self evidently false.

Similarly, I think that Monogamy is not human nature, but cultural. So this situation is hopeful to change!

 

Monogamy... I mean amatonormativity or the tendency about binary relationship.