It seems that there is no logical contradiction in romantically loving two people at the same time. But the issue here is psychological, as it generates profound emotional dissonance. (If you invest yourself which women do by nature).
The dissonance stems from the fact that by definition, emotions demand partiality, that is, the preference of one person over another, which entails some sort of exclusivity. Partiality for a certain man or woman is a function of nature for the purpose of beneficial reproduction and it always has been. Pheremones control the process and generally, women do the picking since we are the soil that grows the baby and the seed. The male sperm is fertilizer which may account for the lack of bond and his lack of emotion tied to sex or any physical body. I don’t know. Women’s bodies know everything, are emotional and do bond and nurture. It’s crazy being a woman. We’re like walking magic without even trying.
Emotionally, it is extremely painful to imagine your lover in the arms of another person. Indeed, most of those who told of being romantically in love with two people at the same time and pleased with the experience also claimed that they would not like to be at the other end of the relationship; that is, they would find it enormously difficult, if not impossible, to share their beloved with someone else.
The deeper problem, however, does not concern normative values, as seen in heteronormativity and amatonormativity but rather emotional ones. It can’t really be completely intellectualized. Even if this process of relaxing of moral norms continues, and there is no reason why it shouldn’t, a major problem remains: the partiality that colors our emotional system, and in particular jealousy, fear, humiliation, and sorrow which are associated with realizing that your beloved partner is in love with someone else. These are million-year-old brain functions brought on by hormones for our survival!
How can you not be partial toward someone you bond your soul (body and mind) to? Answer; You don’t bond. If that continues, the foundation of society, the family within a community, unravels.
But if you are a unique individual, then you must only bind your soul to another unique individual to which you are in affinity. Because you are individual, it can only ever be partial because you largely belong to yourself, is my thought. What of that?
Pardon my bluntness here, but I believe that in essence, wives are patriarchal fuck girls that serve as a status trophy for a man. The king in his castle. “This is the fuck girl (wife) that will bear my children says the fuckboy. It doesn’t mean that I don’t want the delight of other pussies that I call friends”. And millions of men feel entitled to just that… while they’re married…secretly. No love, no bond. But the fact that they married shields them from the truth. They “appear” to be bonded in monogamy which is a sign of emotional maturity, as long as they don’t get caught being immature and indulgent.
Post-fertility, I have no idea what my function is to a man. It’s not going to be a nurse to his lack of health. I do know that a woman, absent the fear of getting pregnant and remaining sexual and healthy could turn the world on its head. It could be considered a woman’s prime and make all the young perky girls ruffle in competition. I guess that’s a cougar. It’s tempting.
But what about bonding? When are men going to feel a compulsion and obligation to love and bond as much as women?
I don’t know. I just know that sex is meaningless and jungle level without it. I’m not interested.