Check in: What arises within the body when contemplating relationship?
The human responses were a mixture of tension, lethargy and anxiety as well as excitement, butterflies and heart-opening love.
The check in opened up a range of avenues to explore.
One human mentioned the burn out affects of being in relationship by giving too much and not receiving enough. A few members of the group resonated with this experience and consequently asked; why?
Are we not saying something?
Do we fear the other’s reaction if we demand what we want and need within relationship?
Do we give ourselves completely and lose touch with our own independence?
Or is it the resistance to losing our independence that creates a leakage of emotional energy?
This led onto conflict and conflict avoidance. A fellow human mentioned a map to approach volatile and sensitive topics called HALT; Hungry, Angry, Lonely (lost), and Tired (1). This acronym is used to gain objective reasoning before entering a sensitive discussion; making aware the influences that may negatively affect the conversation. Can it be used to further avoid conflict and do we need to expand our capacity to hold certain uncomfortable emotions, volumes and tones of voice? Can we have a loud and passionate argument?
Many within the group believed that shouting matches were inefficient and destructive. I personally disagree believing that the destructiveness is directly determined by the negative meaning we place onto the experience. Especially when regarding our dry, emotionally avoidant culture, we could definitely do with a greater capacity to hold the expression of difficult, passionate and uncomfortable emotions. However, if both parties are triggered and attacking each other like wounded animals then the destructive stories have a greater power to cause harm.
Perfecting and refining the signal with group discussion lead to a balance of the two ways of dealing with conflict; being discerning yet clearing space to allow for new stories when experiencing conflict.
Creating an agreement and structure around disagreements that allows for authentic communication to be received was also mentioned.
Briefly landing upon anger and aggressiveness I brought the group back to intimate relationship and do we want the same thing?
What if the man desires freedom and the woman wants to be loved? The Prey Mantis devouring the male after having sex? Is there a truth to this story?
Immediately a human said that both women and men desire freedom and love and if one individual monopolises one it can entrap or polarise the other. This brought forth the analogy of a dance or the ebb and flow of giving and taking within relationship. Clearing a space for the other to step into freedom or step into love and support.
One human said they are sick of being placed into a stereotypical idea of being a woman. This passionate response towards static interpretations highlights the obsolescence of the fixed reality paradigm; heralding the new paradigm being dynamic, fluid, open, transparent, connected and present. The dynamism of reality is creeping into our awareness. From crystal spheres and being being the centre of universe to understanding there are many centres and they are all traveling through unknown territories just as we are beginning to realise this on our own human relationship scale. Are we beginning to acknowledge that the unknown is all there is?
Or perhaps both can exist; the static and the dynamic. The static as a conceptual tool to help us build and map, with the foundational truth being a dynamic unknown. Action with the foundation of listening and awareness.
How much do I need to compromise my desires to make a relationship work?
Do we need to compromise or is there a way in which all needs can be met?
Can I be free within relationship? Can I give love and support and deepen relationship with more than one person?
One human said; ‘Choose your poison; the mundanity of monogamy or the jealousy of polyamory?’
This brought up the human experience of betrayal when a partner sleeps with another person and that even when there is an established agreement for an open relationship this jealousy and betrayal is still felt. This may suggest that the sense of betrayal and jealousy comes forth from an insecurity rather than an external intention to harm.
How do you raise a child within a polyamorous relationship?
Does our upbringing within monogamous, nuclear family dynamics produce traumatised humans with self love issues?
Do two people have enough energy, time and space to give what is required to raise a well rounded human? What about one person?
From my own experience I would say that there was a push and pull of desires expressed by my parents in which the children became the ball and chain. Or rather felt or interpreted being the ball and chain. Compromise on careers, adventures and experiences, as well as relationships is what I witnessed as a child and now I am fearful of commitment.
There is the perfect solution for all of these inquiries and we know it deeply:
Living in community in which everyone understands they each play an individual instrument but are in one band. Humans within the group spoke of dynamics in which the community comes together to sort out relationship issues, aggregate child rearing and enable more than one intimate relationship to occur. Love, support and diversity is in abundance and communication and community is the key.
Next week we will be exploring this further; Relationship; deepening relationship within community.
1. O’Connell, M. Ryan. 31/05/15. HALT, conflict and the buddha. https://viaconflict.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/halt-conflict-the-buddha/