Any useful philosophy of life should have its ways of speaking to that important human state of affairs, intimacy. It should have its ways of advocating for intimacy and its ways of helping its devotees create their best intimate relationships possible.
But why advocacy? Certainly, it must be possible to live well alone or in the company of colleagues and friends? Couldn’t one fulfill one’s self-obligations, make oneself proud, and live a full kirist life without intimacy entering the equation?
Yes, one could. A lack of intimacy is nothing like a life deal-breaker. In fact, many kirists live alone, and for good reasons. But intimacy at its best is of real value and a wise contemporary philosophy of life should spell out those benefits and virtues.
At the same time, that philosophy of life shouldn’t mince words about the difficulties that inevitably arise when two people try to share a bed and a life. Those difficulties are real, grave and sometimes insurmountable. We must admit those hard truths.
Few people are spared relationship problems. Kirists are no different in this regard. There is nothing surprising about this. It is a myth that it ought to be easy for two people to live together in intimate relationship. That is advertising hokum.
It is likewise a myth that someone must be at fault if two people come together and subsequently separate. Relationships can fail simply because the partners do not possess sufficient reasons to share a bed, bodily fluids, and their innermost dreams.
This is true across cultures, in straight and gay relationships, and whether the couple is comprised of kirists or not. People can come together and then separate without anyone being at fault. It may be that they just had too few reasons to stay united.
Nowadays such folks have permission to separate. But for thousands of years, the divorce rate was kept artificially low by cultural injunctions against divorce and by cultural norms that painted marriage as the only right and proper option.
By vesting control in men’s hands, by enacting laws limiting the grounds upon which a divorce could be sought, and through the myth-making of the troubadour tradition, which romanticized love, even the most hellish marriages endured.
These artificial cultural and societal constraints forced unhappy couples to remain together and kept closeted the relationship problems that were indubitably there. Unhappy women were labeled hysterical; abuse flourished, and secrets were kept.
As freedom gained ground, as religion lost its iron grip, and as women secured rights and power, a time came when marriages had to stand on their own two feet if they were to survive. Between half and two-thirds of them couldn’t and still can’t.
It turns out that, if society doesn’t step in to artificially shore them up, the majority of intimate relationships are likely to fail. The heat dwindles; irritations increase; differences of opinions stop seeming amusing. The house of cards topples down.
So, should we turn our back on the ideas of real intimacy and committed relationships? We absolutely shouldn’t. Excellent relationships may prove rare; all may face their difficulties; but, if you get lucky, you will have achieved something exceptional.
Why lucky? Because you can’t make a successful relationship happen on your own. You need an equal partner. You need someone who will make the same sorts of agreements and commitments that you make. You need luck in that regard.
So, it takes two. Your right significant other may not be the first person you meet. It may not be the tenth. It may take a marriage and a divorce before she comes strolling into your life. And only with that person may there be sufficient reasons to be together.
But if there are those reasons—that is something to cherish. Yes, we can live a life alone; but let’s at the same time vote for intimacy.
Eric Maisel is the author of 50+ books. You can learn more about him at www.ericmaisel.com, subscribe to all of his blog posts at https://authory.com/ericmaisel, learn more about kirism here, and write him at [email protected]
—