Posted by: scintillatingspeck | March 5, 2016

Single.

I’m having a kind of big problem with this classification of “single.”  I’ve been putting it on and taking it off like a bodysuit with one sleeve, no leg holes, and no neck hole, and I think it might be time to say that this thing doesn’t fit.  Not that I’d prefer a straitjacket, mind you—I yearn for more nuanced language, or more understanding, or less default assumptions.  Yes, I know, my bar is always set too high.

Single.  To be truthful, I want to claim pieces of this, the parts that actually make sense.  I want people to understand how much of my time is spent alone or only with my daughter.  I want people to know that I am not “taken.”  I want people to recognize that there is no romantic partner living in my home or offering contact on a daily basis.  Also, it’s important to me to be seen as my singular self, an individual, not an appendage to a predefined relationship.

And yet, this label is also driving me a bit mad, like all the other tidy, commonly understood labels—it feels cruel in its erasure of all the other pieces that are also true.  It feels unfair that I can’t be like wide swaths of other people, who can claim words like “single” or “married” or “divorced” or whatever, and have one’s relational identity all neatly encapsulated without any need for further explication.

Why do I always seem to require further explication?!  That’s if I want to be understood at all, I suppose.  I hold back daily, it seems, to spare myself, to spare those I love, and to spare the uninitiated the confusion of having to wrap their heads around something unfamiliar and potentially upsetting.  The problem is, it’s not really sparing myself the angst of feeling misunderstood, lacking adequate support, and being rendered invisible.

Maybe it would help if I go ahead with the explication:  I am single.  I am married.  I am separated.  All of these things are true.  I love my husband.  We are quite certain that living separately is what’s best for us as individuals and as a family, and yet we are strongly committed to one another, probably more committed than ever.  We are together.  We are not together.  We don’t own each other.  Our lives are entwined.

Also, I have a long-distance love, although what is “have” in such a context?  We don’t “have” each other.  We love each other.  We are together.  We are not together.  Even in the midst of uncertainty and unassailable obstacles, our lives are entwined.

Also, there are my platonic loves, who are not loved any less than the others.  I won’t refer to them as “just friends.”  They are my heart, on the same level as my aforementioned loves.  To rank any of them is anathema to me.

And my sidekick, my most frequent companion, my inspiration, my beloved child!  How could I ever consider myself “single,” i.e., alone, when so much of my life is filled with her?

And what of my conviction, despite all of my lifelong mental habits, that the idea of a separate self is an illusion?  What sense does “single” make in that?  Even if I had no loves, no family, no friends, am I not still part of this astonishing web of existence?  How could a human, a type of animal so defined by social behavior, be single?  Where did we get hung up on this terminology?

In the marketplace, I believe.  The necessary opposite to “single” is “taken,” right?  Why do we want to know such things?  We want to know who’s on the market, who’s “available.”  This, to me, seems part of the tyranny of compulsory monogamy and its insidious effects on how we view ourselves and relationships.

This terminology erases all the nuances of relationship, ignoring the importance of community and networks of non-sexual relationships.  It reinforces the hierarchical belief in a romantic, sexual, exclusive dyad as the ultimate goal of human relationship.  It promotes the language of ownership, of commodities, of economies.  If one is “taken,” one is “off the market,” unavailable.  We are a culture of people mostly seeking to be unavailable.

I think this way of thinking does as much, if not more, damage to self-identified monogamous people as it does to those who are ethically non-monogamous.  It’s not just the realm of relational minorities/radicals to question this; I think it’s perfectly possible for those who identify as entirely monogamous to also dismantle such false and oppressive hierarchies.  I think we are capable of discerning the difference between how we prioritize time and energy (which necessarily limits the scope of how many people we can interact with) and how love itself is not subject to any artificial economy or restraint.

I don’t want to be marked as a participant in a relationship marketplace; I want to opt out of that system.  At the same time, I want people to know that my heart is open, that I am essentially available to the extent that my boundaries and interests allow.  In that sense, “single” could be a useful label to wear: “I am available.”  And not just to potential lovers, but to friends.  It troubles me that I even need to make that distinction.

And while I’m available, I want people to know the depth of feeling, commitment, and connection I have to my current loves.  I won’t disavow them for the sake of protecting anyone’s preconceived notions of “true love.”

I’m home alone, but true love is all around and will soon be springing up like violets.

Photo on 2016-03-05 at 20.50

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I understand that you’re wanting freedom from these old labels which fence us all in. Some of today’s labels seem just as bad to me:
    “relegated to the friend zone”
    “fuck buddies”
    “significant other” I really don’t like that one. It implies a hierarchy of relationships.
    “BFF” I’m not even sure how that is applied.

    • Yep. Unsurprisingly, I also have issues with those terms. “Friend zone” should not be a put-down! Friendship is an honor! And “BFF”—again, the whole concept of “best” friends is a little suspect in my eyes, because of the ranking aspect. I have friends that I’m closer to than others, for sure, but I feel a bit allergic to the exclusivity thing (“MY BFF… MINE… someone to feel jealous over…”) Argh. As for “fuck buddies”—I suppose it’s descriptive enough, although I can see how the implied casualness can be bothersome. And “significant other”—I have never been able to fully grok this phrase. Just, no.

      • I do like BFF thing, it’s my problem in English language that one does not have different words for “casual” friends and close friends, someone I may like and socialise sometimes is “friend” and someone I trust with my life is “friend” ?
        nope
        it’s not about ranking (for me) it’s about saying how close we are
        in Polish word “colleague” doesn’t mean only someone you work with but someone between acquaintance and friend, I’m missing that word in English so I use “friend” for Polish meaning of “colleague” and BF for someone much closer
        other than that I do agree with you 😀
        also I really like word “solopoly” as this is exactely where I am right now and where I want to stay in forseeable future: not nesting with my partner/s but having deep and meaningful relationships

      • Thanks for weighing in, CoffeeFox. English is weird in so many ways. And I can see the appeal of the term “solo poly” for so many people— I guess I don’t identify with it much myself, because I would rather be nesting, and not just in a nuclear-family-model sort of way, but in a close-knit community or a sprawling extended-chosen-family sort of way. But yay for more words and phrases to ever more accurately represent the reality of various people’s lives and longings.

      • English IS weird and beautiful 😀 it’s far more…condensed than Polish, it’s also fun how different parts of ones personality are more visible in different languages 😀 I love that 🙂
        poly dating/names can be complicated
        people so easily misunderstand or they have misconceptions about polyamory…
        Kimchi Cuddles just did a wee comic about it, do you know her work? I love it 🙂

      • Yes, I agree about the expressive possibilities in different languages! I was raised speaking English and Italian, and Italian has certain structures and nuances that are wonderful, too. And I looooove English, for all its weirdness.

        There seem to be ever-expanding lexicons of poly terms, and I like seeing what sticks and what doesn’t. I keep feeling drawn to the phrase “relational anarchy.” 🙂

        Yes, I do know Kimchi Cuddles, and like it, too.

  2. well-played, jen, well-stated; i love seeing you unpeel ❤

  3. And in the field of violets, let’s gather all of our friends and lovers and have a picnic. ^_^ You’re doing some great work here.

    • Thank you, Carole. And a picnic sounds great. The trick would be to assemble the elusive humans and especially the distant ones.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: