Tuesday, August 18, 2009

NSA


No Strings Attached. This is often applied to sexual encounters. People that want to connect physically without the emotional or practical connection that is often associated with rubbing bits together. This is something that seems to work well in a number of cases. Perhaps someone is just disinterested in a relationship, but wants to have their sexual needs satisfied. Maybe they are not emotionally equipped to be in partnership with someone. There could be a large component of their life, like schooling, that sucks so many time and energy resources as to make a relationship untenable.


The question I am wrestling with is if it is possible to have an emotionally and sexually connected relationship, to be part of a family, without also having responsibilities (strings) that are attached? Voluntary participation in any relationship is non-negotiable for me. There is abundance available, so why stay in a relationship out of a sense of obligation?


"Strings" seem to be intrinsic in relationships. The quest is to find the ones that resonate with your core, without signing up for the ones that feel imposed by others. Obligation is a poor motivator, but desire to participate and be a part of something larger than self can seem very similar on the surface. What goes on beneath the still waters is what counts.


How many strings can one release before the connection to the relationship is disconnected? Is it the sexual component? There are many people that enjoy warm a loving relationships that are asexual in nature, often due to medical issues, but what if sexuality has ceased to be a resonant quality for someone in a relationship? Does that invalidate all of the other ways that that relationship works?


Perhaps it just comes down to the lowest common denominator: Desire. As long as the people involved still want to be together, they are. Simple. A slender string to attach to, but one with more tensile strength than steel cables.


Post a Comment