By Antonio Malara The idea for this post was born during a night walk I took some time ago with a close friend of mine. We were talking about the complicated relationships of today and at a certain point I suggested that the best solution was to have a relationship as lovers. At that point my friend looked at me and asked me dryly: "Sorry but what do you mean by lover?" Although my friend is a highly intelligent person, I understood that this ancient concept had now fallen into disuse or at least had been mystified, misunderstood and confused with other types of relationships. I understood that in our times something needed to be written about the concept of lover, clearly applied to today where relationships have undergone an evolution-involution. Personally, as I have written in other posts, I do not believe in chance but in well-thought-out plans and I believe that even the current sentimental situations which today are full of Hollywood-style crises and separations are the consequence of a very specific agenda. However, the discussion is very complex and in this case I cannot speak for everyone but I must express my personal idea and first explain why from my point of view it is better to be a "lover" rather than a husband and then elaborate why relationships of the common people are in decline. In my post “Decent Proposal” I talked about the virtual relationships that arise on social networks, especially those that are not consummated. I basically dedicated the post to all those girls we mutually flirted with but nothing ever happened. In the finale I introduced the concept of "psychologist lover", a figure in which I recognize myself as a wise person who can satisfy the mind and body of women who are in a relationship, bringing only benefits to the couple themselves rather than quarrels and separations. It is a somewhat paradoxical concept and it only works if on both sides there is pure wisdom rather than homologation and the philosophy of life that has been imposed on us but which does not always respect logic or instinct. While the concept of family is apparently the most normal thing, on the other hand it is a phenomenon that I have always observed with skepticism. Two people who are mutually attracted, at a certain point, decide to live together and complete this process with the practice of marriage. Honestly, I have never understood this convention or whether to count it among folklore or law. Bonding to someone in a physical and spiritual way is something that goes beyond logic and reason; why do it legally? Why must there be a "judge" who endorses this process as a superior or more competent entity, be it a priest or a mayor? I am not referring to the purely capitalistic side of the money spent to organize a wedding but rather to the consecration of a bond; What do these gentlemen know about two people who in that period are particularly attracted to each other and then decide to get together in a "legal" way? The answer is that they know nothing, they are just mediums making a relationship official. Furthermore, what I'm wondering is what this type of “consecration” could actually mean? Perhaps the man becomes the owner of the woman, or the opposite? The bond "consecrated" by marriage is an absolute ritual based on a mutual attraction of a temporary nature. This is truly a wedding! However, from it arises not only consumerism, but also the concept of family consecrated with the birth of children, a process of which we have all been "victims". In fact, if I exist today and write this post it is because the process I just described took place previously. But as I have always said since I was a child, if my parents had never met and married, I would never have been born and therefore I would never have been aware of anything, without consciousness and physical form; an entity never born and therefore without the possibility of rejoicing or suffering. In other words, the fact of not having been born not only would not have changed the fate of the world but would never have created my human entity capable of feelings. This would not have been a drama as we are temporary beings with a process of physical and mental evolution that is quite sad because it leads to death, at least the physical one. Conversely, if we had been absolute and immortal beings, then not having been born would have had a different and more important value, in which case the human being would have had more importance, especially from a moral point of view. As if to say: I was lucky enough to be born as an eternal being so I have the duty to improve everything around me. Unfortunately, not only is this not the case but every living being makes the mistake of living as if it were immortal. The clear proof is when you go to the doctor, at any age, to seek treatment and not risk worse things such as death for example which is in fact inevitable. However, people take themselves seriously: they get married, they give birth to children, these bring worries and thoughts which over time have repercussions on the health of the parents who begin to age, have sex less and less and end up being two friends rather than two fiery lovers. Clearly there are exceptions but capitalist society is structured in such a way that the path of the phantom family develops as I have just described. For some strange reason over the last hundred and fifty years there has been this process, this type of mechanism that seems to me more like an experiment than a natural process. I said one hundred and fifty years because from what I can see, it is more or less the time in which I can go back with my family tree; in fact, both on the maternal and paternal side, traces of my ancestors were lost around the year 1870 or so. It's as if everything, at least in my area, began in that period, like a genetic experiment that gave rise to who we are now. This is a more complex topic that needs to be covered in more depth but not in this post, however there is the belief that we are the descendants of who knows what civilization or people. The speech of the ancestors is a test that anyone can do; try to trace your ancestors, you won't go beyond 1850!  But to return to the concept of family, we must in a certain sense classify the concept of couple especially nowadays because there are different variations. Today we have the society based on classic marriage, the one based on divorce and the one based on classic marriage where one of the members of the couple or both commit adultery as a basic rule. These are the hypotheses that we have today but which have probably always existed, regarding the "legalization" of the couple or the "regulation" that unites two people who for various reasons are attracted to each other. In classic marriage we have a highly conventional relationship where two people like each other and decide to give up their lives in favor of the family. Most of the time these are people with little personality, who act according to traditions and prefer the comfort zone given by their partner followed by the routine of marriage, rather than living on adventures. In this hypothesis we have two people convinced that what classical society promises is the right choice. A choice based on long-term satisfaction, the family stuck in an irreversible debt mechanism that leads spouses to stay together and plan the future side by side knowing that in difficult times one can count on the other. Basically there is loyalty because this type of people, with their forced classical education, have no idea what real fun and real attraction are. On the wave of enthusiasm they decide to bond forever and renounce temptations (assuming they have ever learned them), a bond that becomes an absolute duty after the birth of their children. This type of relationship is very romantic and naive, however if done with full knowledge of the facts, in a conscious way and without external pressure, it can also be a beautiful thing. There are people who are actually in love in a pure and sincere way but I am of the opinion that this type of copying arises more from renunciation and fear than from love. In fact, many convince themselves (or are convinced by the system) that they are not attractive or particularly talented and see in the classic family the way out, the solution to an imaginary evil. As long as this type of relationship continues without frustration or neurosis, it can go well but many times, in old age one of the spouses realizes that they have made a mistake or in any case doubts begin to arise. In this case he understands that the choice he made as a young man was wrong, when this happens, only a few manage to cancel the neurosis and continue moving forward, but above all today most give a "Hollywood" twist to their lives and here we arrive at the second type of couple; the one who divorces. When I think of divorce, Liz Taylor and Richard Burton come to mind, an iconic couple who married and divorced twice. Until about fifteen years ago, for me divorce was not only a rich thing but an actor thing. In fact, I have always seen separation as a bizarre thing for people who lived against trend, an eccentric thing typical of those who have a lot of money and a lot of popularity. For me, who grew up in a classical society, it was funny to see actors separating, in fact it was anomalous to see that a famous Hollywood couple managed to stay together for a long time. However, in the last fifteen years something has begun to change, more than anything else something with a highly ambiguous tone was born, something that was supposed to bring people together but which brought an entire society into disarray; the social networks. I would like to start by saying, as I have already written elsewhere, that I do not believe in chance but in well-thought-out plans. For me, social networks were created to divide people, put them against each other and drive people who are happy together to separate. The opportunity and vision that social networks have brought have put the unhealthy idea in people's heads that everything is possible, that life can start again at fifty and that everyone can realize the dreams they had to give up on cause of the family. The circus of social networks made of photos full of filters and only from the best angles have given the classic couple the opportunity to start again. If the housewife with the now withered physique no longer had the attention of her husband, on social media she found attention from “the loser” who in his life has never received attention from a girl. On this vicious cycle of "likes" on a "fake" photo, the middle class has begun to go berserk and argue over stupid things. Suddenly there was the possibility of rebelling against the concept of classic marriage because online you could find the right person, the one who understood you. After about ten years of social media, what I saw, especially in the middle class, was just a shuffling of cards. I have seen horrible couples separate and then reform with different partners, equally unsuitable and badly matched couples. In all of this, the subjects in question experienced convictions that they had rebuilt their lives. The reality is that rather than rebuilding their lives, they have ruined and confused the lives of their children who first had a “model” and subsequently found themselves in triple or quadruple families. This variant of the classic couple has no function except that of sending the new generations into disarray, who, losing the “model” they considered absolute, continue on their path under the sign of disillusionment. As for new couples, after the first moment of fire, they return to the classic routine even with the new partner because if up to the age of fifty you have only been with seven-eight women or seven-eight men in the case of women, what do you know of passion or real sexual activity? Without a shadow of a doubt you know nothing about how to physically satisfy a partner otherwise you would have remained single and predatory, not a partner who seems nothing more than a second-hand guaranteed to me! The third hypothesis of the couple's relationship is the one most similar to my concept of lover, but only apparently. In fact, there have always been couples in which one or both partners have always had a lover, in parallel with marriage. Especially in the upper social classes, having a lover was like having a luxury car, and it applied to both sexes. The rich man cheated as a lifestyle, as if it were a normal or prestigious thing. In the Italian comedy of the eighties, this phenomenon is shown in many films, where the topic was almost always treated in an ironic way. However, in the high-level social class, the concept of lover is not expressed at the highest levels of passion but is rather a status symbol and cliché. For example, the age difference between loving partners, older man and young girl, mature woman and young boy. The vices of a society that is bored because it has no financial problems and most of the time no talent or passion. This type of relationship between lovers is almost always influenced by money; people who are together with old people only for economic interest. In the intimacy of these relationships, nothing happens that can be seen in a porn film. In other words, this relationship of lovers that rich people have is very far from what I mean and I consider this type of relationship the most boring and useless of all those mentioned.   However, the concept of lover also existed in the middle class but was always misinterpreted by the protagonists. The lover in the middle class is really a relationship of passion only that it goes to excess. In a classic relationship, when one of the partners cheats, he or she cheats with the "heart", truly becoming infatuated with the other person and experiencing the relationship in a melodramatic way. Betrayal in the middle class, after the initial passion, is experienced as a sin and therefore becomes a problematic concept. In this case, in fact, doubts, remorse, feelings of guilt and fear take over, elements that ultimately compromise the relationship which in the best case scenario ends without separation. In this case we have two people who, rather than enjoying the additional partner, as if it were a second car or a second home, complicate things due to purely moral or religious concepts. My idea takes into account rationality and absence of emotion, if you have decided to have a lover, this relationship must be lived absolutely, with passion but always maintaining control of the situation and it applies to both sexes! If you like me more than your husband and we slept together, you need to assert passion not the Christian concept of guilt. If you gave in to me, it means you liked me and wanted it too. These are the things that every human being must think about before and after having a lover. Unfortunately, it is rare to find two loving partners able to apply this fairly simple and decisive concept. Furthermore, what lovers in this category do not understand is that where the lover ends, the husband begins, so it is essential to maintain control and limit oneself to a pre-established number of secret meetings. Here we come to my personal concept of lover which is basically a more rational and updated version of modern days, a practice that has always existed and which I have already described in various nuances. I will speak as a man attracted to a woman, but the concept can be reversed if the reader is a woman. In the modern couple of a capitalist society which, especially today, is even more under stress, giving yourself space for yourself is fundamental. People do this in different ways; from sport to meditation, there is the psycho-physical need to be oneself, to do something different and natural that distances itself from the things imposed by capitalism centered on work and psychological satisfaction through consumerism. Unfortunately even these practices today are a bit guided and not natural, I am referring to when someone does a leisure activity which is fundamentally always dictated by society and not by ourselves. The free human being in fact scares capitalism; freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom to create things that come from within ourselves are a danger to the system. Society wants us as machines not as human beings! But the apotheosis is also reached on biologically natural things, such as sleep, food and sex; the three things that our body requires. In recent years, people sleep less and less because they are busier or under stress, eat badly because it has been established that almost all food is harmful and have sex less and less because we have become a virtual phenomenon where couples look at the beauty of others on social networks rather than turn on the real passion. In a society that wants us to be robots, going back to obeying our instincts and what our conscience really wants is fundamental for our psycho-physical salvation. So if two partners are in bed and each of them looks at photos on a social network of more or less famous people of the opposite sex, it is clear that they are passively satisfying a natural need. In other words they would like to have sex with someone else and they find it on a subconscious level by looking at photos that are the expression of the physical perfection of the ideal woman-man. This also occurs in everyday life because stereotypes are copied and today more than ever people don't have a personality but copy what they see online. So it is very easy for a married couple to find the ideal lovers that they see on social media even in real life. This is to establish that the real alternative exists, it just needs to be captured.   What I mean to say is that modern society, if it wants to keep a marriage stable and long-lasting, needs to cheat, it seems like a paradox but it isn't. The imposition of monogamy is violence that goes against all psychological and physical logic. It is clear that being lovers is not something for everyone, indeed there are very few of us among the male gender, because it requires a series of qualities that are not exactly common. Here I want to elaborate the concept of lover from the male point of view, of the qualities he should have to earn this status. First of all, to be a true lover you must first of all respect a woman and have a real passion for the female gender. By this I mean that normally in an intimate relationship the man always thinks of himself and neglects or ignores the woman's pleasure. Personally my pleasure is the reflected pleasure of the woman, if she doesn't enjoy herself I get frustrated too (which normally never happens). So before deceiving, leading to betrayal or infatuating a woman, you must put her pleasure before anything else. If we don't understand this mission it's better to leave it alone. Another gift is that of destiny, if nature has not endowed us with certain dimensions there will certainly be more problems satisfying certain desires and we will not be remembered in a particular way. But even if we are gifted, we must also be talented in using what nature gave us by fate. At the same time, athletic skills are also needed which, in my concept of a lover, are increasingly reinvigorated thanks to the most natural, satisfying and beautiful physical activity that can be sex. In addition to this, the most important thing is certainly the psychological-intellectual aspect, a woman of a certain level needs everything, not only physical but also psychological satisfaction. If a man is not altruistic, if a man does not listen, if a man does not understand a woman before she speaks, he can never be a lover. This role therefore requires a double soul, wild and intellectual at the same time which must be discovered on the part of the woman who instead is most often deceived by the models dictated by society. The model of the modern dark man, pathetic perfectionist with the square beard and with the passion of the physique built half in the gym and half at home mixing supplements, is the most insecure subject of our century. The supposed freedom of the modern woman has put him in such a crisis that he first hides behind a beard and then reacts by building a laboratory physique which, however, most of the time manages to deceive women. The insecurity and jealousy of this male specimen is in fact mistaken for excessive narcissism, confusing women. Most of the time these individuals are not in control of the situation because they basically have doubts about themselves and their abilities, it's fine for women if these specimens limit themselves to obscuring the last connection on WhatsApp because the line between lover and stalker is very close. In these "modern" times, as lovers we must always give our best but never consider ourselves the only ones, this is a mistake that should not be made if we want to be true lovers. The mania of being irreplaceable only brings problems for us and others as well as a lack of respect for oneself and one's self-esteem. So once we have the psycho-physical skills and the awareness of what we must and can do, I want to explain why being lovers can only bring benefits even to a married couple. With your lover you see each other once or twice a week but you can also go on a weekend or a trip but you don't need to give any other account or explanation. The lover is not like the partner to whom one communicates everything on a daily basis, where the negative aspects only bring frustration. In a relationship with your lover there is no “good morning” or “good night”, your private life is left out. In a delicate moment, if the lover needs to confide you something, she must be listened to but without getting emotionally involved and above all the man's personal life must always remain in the sphere of mystery, otherwise it is like having a normal and classic relationship, which personally I don't agree nor is it a good omen. The relationship with the lover is a creative space, where the routine of life is put aside, with the lover we need to talk about ideas, not problems. It's like a second level; most of today's problems come from family and work so it is in that environment that solutions must be found. The lover can listen to the problems but he must do so with the same detachment as the psychologist. In this way there is an increase in trust because understanding a person's state of mind is much more important than solving a personal problem. This trust born from understanding the other means that a lover's relationship can be lived with the aim of pleasure and not as a phenomenon of adultery or lived with anxiety. In this way, with the physical part of the relationship, the psychological suffering is eliminated and put aside albeit temporarily. It's like a sport, a hobby or like going to the analyst, the concept of a lover must be based on lightheartedness which in this case is also a physical satisfaction. Voluntarily limiting encounters increases desire, keeping the relationship always at high levels. Asking for more from one of the two is counterproductive and leads to decline, because it is fundamentally a form of greed. We have so many commitments that it is not necessary to have so many meetings with the lover which would also lead to inflating the relationship. Moreover, when meetings are limited, we have our lover at her best, as she prepares for us. In this case we don't see things less glamorous than when, for example, our lover wakes up in the morning, when she goes to the bathroom to poop, when she eats breakfast out of hunger and loses all style. In the lover relationship these things are not seen so our loving partner always maintains his aesthetic beauty. Wanting her all day would be horrible, it would mean seeing the ugly parts and it would lead to disillusionment by making our lover seem like she was just another wife. The peak of this theory about the lover is reached with the achievement of some sexual practices that I clearly cannot describe in detail. Precisely because she is always seen as beautiful and always in top shape, the girl lover inspires the man in many ways and leads them to desire things from her that we have never thought of in relation to a wife. In fact, the girl lover has a transgressive connotation as a principle, so she is idealized in that way, that being capable of satisfying all extreme desires. This is because most of time, the concept of girlfriend and later wife, gets corrupted from the start; these figures are considered as "chaste" or "pure" so it is unimaginable to do some things with your partner that are not the classic ones. This is another mistake that the practice of marriage normally brings with it. Not all normal relationships are like this but I believe that most have this intrinsic characteristic.   In conclusion, I believe that this society can also be based on marriage but where each partner, if needed, can go to the "right person" where, in addition to psychological discussion, they can also have sex without taboos. Let's say that this already happens but in a certain sense it is corrupt and is not experienced with tranquility. Yes, it still lives within certain patterns that rather than simplifying them, some entity has managed to complicate them. Not only the concept of sin, but also this false principle of materialistic happiness at all costs. In fact, another thing that ruins the relationship as a lover is the false concept of starting a new life! The classic marriage has a linear structure designed in phases that close, it cannot and should not be proposed again with a different partner, especially when you have children. The lover, on the other hand, is an "evergreen" concept because it always presents itself in the same way and the only thing that makes it exhaust is the physical aging of one of the two. This concept of lover-psychologist is a hypothesis that can be applied to this society that we live in today, unfortunately in decay from a cultural point of view but always super connected. Clearly in a utopian society as I imagine it would be different. For example, a society that is based on freedom and not on money would drastically change the couple's relationship which would continue to exist but in a different way also compared to the concept I am developing. It is clear that money invented only to enslave the masses will unfortunately always be the basis of society controlled by the elite in a total way. It is clear that at this moment there is a desire to destroy the western society by always introducing new concepts which, aiming at increasing the narcissism of every single individual, lead to destabilization and total confusion. The result is what we see today with a society with a melodramatic approach, which divorces when instead it could have some occasional and parallel relationship as I described it or which in the workplace puts the objectives of its company before its own needs and requirements. This post may seem contradictory at times but in the end this is a bit like our natural condition, like that episode of "Family Guy" in which Glenn Quagmire, as a person dedicated to sexual promiscuity, tried for the first time the life of a normal dad enjoying family pleasures, going into an existential crisis for not being able to understand what the best choice was. Personally, fortunately or unfortunately, I have always preferred to be a lover, not popular or for everyone but not even the exclusive person for someone in particular. I have always followed my noble, non-wild instinct which led me to enjoy life with many with whom I had a particular connection. In the future there are other conquests that I hope to make but no one can say whether I will succeed or not, then who knows maybe there will be someone who will give me something more that others have never given me. At that point I will be forced to write a new post, developing a new concept. A.M.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |