Skip to main content

the democratization of love

Romantic love as we know it today is not that old. In the not too distant past, marriages were more like arrangements where two people joined to increase their chance of prosperity. Many of these unions were arranged and before these children had reached the age of puberty, some were already betrothed to be wed. The families had a mutual interest in these marriages and at the highest levels of power included access to the thrones of Europe. At the lowest levels, they could be a way out of poverty.

But as wealth began to be more evenly distributed among the population, the idea of choice became possible. People could wait for the person they were drawn to rather than concern themselves only with economics or power interests. Love became in a way democratized like it never had before.

Of course as we well know, these unions were not necessarily more successful in the long run and, in highly patriarchal societies, women were left vulnerable to the infidelities of men who had grown weary of their partners. The inequality only worked in one direction.

Today, we are left with a more level playing field but also with more confusion than ever before because the rules are increasingly non-existent. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean we are even more uncertain of the outcome and, as the pressure of religious dogma as bonding agent has been removed from the equation, the likelihood of a union surviving has been greatly reduced.

As a result, perhaps we need to refashion our thinking about the idea of marriage and expect that the old baseline of "till death do us part" is now the anomaly.

One of the largest growing group of people are now divorcees many with grown children who are trying to find love in an environment of increasing uncertainty but perhaps with the added advantage of hindsight in knowing what they don't want.

Still, no matter our place in life or economic standing, romantic love remains and always has been at best a crap shoot.


Popular posts from this blog

how times change

How times have changed.

Whereas transition was something not to even contemplate for us, here is a young trans person who felt the opposite pressure. She looks and sounds extremely passable but decided it wasn't for her despite the social media presence of young transitioners potentially inspiring her to.

We are all different and I happen to think she's rather a smart cookie as well...


As transgender people, organized religion hasn't really been our friend however on the other hand it has often had little to do with true spirituality. I needed to learn this over time and much of what I was taught growing up was steeped in the judgmental superstition of society instead of what some creator would demand of me.

Regardless of your belief system, you are a child of the universe and have been endowed with uniqueness and goodness of spirit. You have probably never wished anyone ill will and you have tried your best to live within the absurd coordinate system of humanity. Yet somehow belonging to the LGBT community was entirely your fault.

As I have grown older this inherent irrationality became increasingly evident to me. I knew I was a fundamentally good person and yet I was different in a way which was not of my choosing. Hence with this comprehension my self appreciation and esteem grew in proportion.

Religion for me today seems forever trapped in the misinterpretat…

let's please read carefully

This post is prompted by a recent comment I received to one of my older posts and I wanted to address it.

I used to wonder why some transgender people accepted Blanchard’s work until I think I figured out why: they may not have examined it closely enough. They would experience cross gender arousal and then accept it was Autogynephilia without properly understanding what the term meant and what the theory said: it is an invented sexual “illness” which makes people transition. In other words, it is the arousal itself which causes this desire and not a pre-existing gender identity which does not align with birth sex. Of course, Blanchard has no explanation for the origin of his proposed “illness” only that it is a form of sexual deviance.

My counter proposal? we transition despite this arousal. In other words, the transgender identity is pre-existing and the arousal is the result of the mismatching of burgeoning sexual feelings towards females and this misaligned identity; it is not per…