LoyarBorak features discussions of selected issues in either written, video, or audio formats.
LoyarBorak goes all romantic in the week leading up to Valentine’s Day, as thoughts shift to love, relationships, and marriage. This LoyarBorak is moderated by Marcus van Geyzel, and the Borakkers taking part in this session are Edmund Bon, June Rubis, Lim Ka Ea, and Syahredzan Johan.
Please borak along in the comments section below. If you’d like to be a Borakker, email us at [email protected].
This is the final part of a two-part LoyarBorak. Read Part One here.
Marcus: What do you think of the generally-accepted view that couples should go from being in love, to being in a relationship, to being “engaged” and then getting married?
Edmund:
It is basic human right to be married to a person of your choice.
Progress in a relationship is entirely dependent on the couple and it would be wrong to dictate the steps to take. But I am uncomfortable that culture, religion and society frequently impose the purported need and values of marriage on people. Many people are stuck in unhappy marriages. Many couples live happily without getting married.
Marcus: But how would you choose to be married, if to you, love is an illusion? What would the criteria then be for that choice? The same as how you would choose your friends?
Edmund:
Personally, I don’t believe in the institution and culture of marriage but I won’t knock people who do want to get married (sometimes, however, jokingly). Most, if not all, of what needs to be achieved through marriage may be achieved by not getting married.
I have not heard a reason that is not a selfish one for getting married — children to look after me when I’m old, continue the family name, afraid of the partner leaving the relationship. Much of our lives are dictated by social constructs which are unnecessary.
We came with nothing. We live life as much with something. We leave life with nothing.
Give me better reasons why should one get married?
June:
I think this view puts a lot of people under pressure to follow society’s expectations. It is great if you truly, honestly want it for yourself, but not many people do. As well, there are couples who do want to get married but can’t because society says so!
For example, inter-religious couples who do not want to compromise on their faith, yet are in love and want to get married. Or couples of the same sex. How is that fair?
Perhaps if more people stand up, and are able to say, this is not for me, others will feel more empowered to make their own life choices.
After all, it is your life.
Ka Ea:
I’m an impulsive sort of person.
I don’t really believe in rules or what people view as “normal” progression of things when it comes to relationships between two human beings. Feeling and thought processes are two extremely complex matters and nothing is ever predictable when it comes to them.
I’m sure you can find couples who get married just after one month of knowing each other and remain married for more than 20 years. You will also find couples who were engaged for two years and then decide to go on their separate ways. There are many couples who are co-habitating and yet they seem to fight less than those who are married.
So, why create rules for something which you can never really predict?
As long as couples strive for an honest and loving relationship, rules shouldn’t matter.
Rules don’t change people. People do.
Syah:
Well I more or less followed the same route, so I think there’s a nice progression by following them. I think there must be a suitable gap from the starting point (“being in love”) to the “end” point (“marriage”) so that both are comfortable with the progress of the relationship.
I think that is the rationale behind these steps.
Far too many marriages have ended because any or both parties were not ready for the commitment that is expected in a marriage.
In saying that, I do think it sometimes create unnecessary complications. Sometimes, couples can fall in love and get married, without the need for engagement, for example. Yet societal and cultural pressures dictate that it must be done the “orthodox” way. Not for the benefit of the couple but simply because other parties (usually the family) expect it.
Marcus: Why did you and your wife choose that route? Or was it your wife who made the decisions (joke)?
Syah:
Yeah. It was the wife (just joking, sayang!).
With us, I think very early on in the relationship we had already talked about marriage. It was just a matter of time. For me personally, I wanted to make sure that before I marry, I was in a relatively stable financial position, not least because weddings these days cost a lot of money! We dated for five years before our marriage, so I think even if we hadn’t gone through the whole process, we’d still be happily married, simply because we’ve dated for such a long time before tying the knot.
But we went through the whole merisik, bertunang and bernikah phases (like any “good” Malay couple would) because of tradition and expectations from both sides of the family.
And I don’t think my wife is complaining, since she got a different ring for each phase.
I’m not saying that you need to date for a long time be happy, what I’m saying is that if you want to enter into a long term commitment like marriage, you better make sure you’re ready for it. Whether it takes 5 months, 5 years or 50 years, at the end of the day what is most important is that you have prepared yourself for this life-changing event called marriage.
Marcus: Describe a “romantic relationship” in your ideal world.
Edmund:
Feeling free. Living for the moment in the moment. Being yourself with everyone you are with.
The world will never be ideal and we will all die soon. So live as happily as possible with whoever (or more) you want to be with.
Marcus: So you don’t see a “romantic relationship” as a one-to-one, but rather as a relationship between you and the world around you?
Edmund:
Huh? Where did you get that from? Must be the “true lawyer” talking and reading between the lines.
Just as love, “romance” or what is “romantic” has been misused. It’s really about enjoying as much time and the moment as possible with whoever you are with. It could be one-to-one or not.
It could be a memory that fades away or lingers at the back of your mind.
June:
In an ideal world, a romantic relationship would be with someone who loves and accepts me for the many facets that make up me, and vice versa.
We will challenge each other to be our best, and will be communicative, honest, loyal, and true. We share core beliefs, and are passionate about similar causes. We will stand up for each other in public when am faced under criticism, but in private, will have the integrity to tell the other person how we messed up.
We will strive to be continually conscious in our relationship, living in every moment. Together, we will become more spiritually aware of our connection to the Earth and our community, and work together towards a shared life of meaning and service.
We will also have fun.
Yet, that is in an ideal world, and in reality, life just happens and we have no control over it. Perhaps the next best thing is to be in that ideal relationship with yourself.
Ka Ea:
Romance is not about sending your loved one 1,000 stalks of red roses or declaring your love in front of millions of people.
It’s about giving up a part of you and offering it to the other person without expecting anything in return. It’s about giving that person his/her happiness despite forfeiting your own and it has to be mutual of course. Otherwise, it’s just shiok sendiri (self-indulgent).
What’s romance without all the painful tribulations faced by the couple and infused with life’s predicament and drama?
In Leaving Las Vegas, Nicolas Cage said to Elisabeth Shue, “I am a drunk and I know you’re a hooker. I hope you understand that I’m a person who is totally at ease with this.”
That sums up romance for me but in my ideal world; my love and I would be speaking like Mr Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett.
I leave these words with you.
“I will have to tell you: you have bewitched me, body and soul, and I love, I love, I love you. I never wish to be parted from you from this day on.”
Syah:
A relationship in which the only people who matter are those in the relationship.
Free from all racial, religious or societal considerations. Free from pressures placed by family members or the need to keep up appearances.
In my ideal world, the only ones who decide where to take the relationship is the couple themselves.
Edmund is a virgin who believes in free love while tweeting at @edmundbon.
June is a secret romantic who believes in Unweddings and tweets at @j_rubis.
Ka Ea is happy to be in love.
Syah is a self-professed “poyo jiwang” who spends his days listening to The Moffatts and stalking Justin Bieber via @syahredzan. Do not judge him.
Wait…..so Edmund and Pang are gay?
Do you want me to tell you something really subversive? Love is everything it's cracked up to be. That's why people are so cynical about it. . . . It really is worth fighting for, being brave for, risking everything for. And the trouble is, if you don't risk anything, you risk even more. ~ Erica Jong
Ditto to Ka Ea, and MVG.
When the Love LoyarBorak was suggested (none other than EB himself haha), we more or less decided that it wasn't going to be an intellectual discourse on whether love exists, etc. but rather get real and personal, and explain how it means to us. Or maybe we just wanted to gang up on EB and make him emote on love. Who knows.
All in all, I think Ka Ea, Syah and EB were brave in attempting to answer these questions, as personal as they were. Many thanks to MVG for devising the questions because the topic was so vast in itself, he had the tough job in trying to make us sing, so to speak.
I like how Ka Ea puts it, love is for everyone – whether they’re intellectually unsophisticated or not.
For me personally, this is what LoyarBurok should be as well. For everyone. When we talk about mainstreaming human rights, we have to realize that constant intellectual pontificating on the blog will only subscribe to a converted few. And I don't want LoyarBurok to be elitist – what is the point, if we talk about getting everyone to understand more about human rights?
#LoyarBerkasih has been a labour of love, and I wanted more people, everyone to start reading LoyarBurok on a regular basis.
At times, perhaps yes, there would be some inane, non-sophisticated articles now and then, but hey, let our freak flag fly, and embrace being in love, whatever it means to us. Let us be human, as imperfect as we are.
love always
June
Bon, what do you mean when you say "lurve you all" if "love is an illusion […] a form of escapism from the suffering, drudgery and sadness of life."?
We need to spend less time defining and deconstructing love, and more time experiencing it.
Dear friends in love,
This #LoyarBerkasih has got you all of us lurvee-doveee….lurve you all esp Pang!
Aiyoh, Pang! Why so much mental masturbation??!!
Reading your comments, trying to decipher all the big words you used is turning me off love.
Love is for everyone – whether they're intellectually unsophisticated or not.
So let's just cut to the chase and make love.
Edmund should be so lucky to have you. :)
ehem, being the 'pedantic academic,' can I offer people some reading materials?
Antonio Damasio's "Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain"
Teresa de Lauretis's "The Practice of Love"
Jacques Lacan's "The Mirror-Stage" (I suggest reading anything you can find on Lacan)
Sigmund Freud's "The Psychology of Love"
C.S. Lewis's The Allegory of Love
Georges's Batailles "Erotism: Death and Sensuality" (if you aren't squeamish, I also suggest "The Eye", his novel with all his philosophy on love and sex).
Luce Irigaray's "The Sex which is Not One"
I can go on but I will pause here for now. I welcome conversations on these.
Pang, all that intellectualism, compensating for something? Consider that there are actually . If so, prepare to hit your reset button and rethink life. As least some of us can reset in privacy, those not so fortunate will have to unlink first from those who imprison to move forward.
*** "NEUROTECH" ***
Warning to Citizens of the World
FOR GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD :
There is a technological dimension of justice and element of consideration that nullifies the entire case of criminality or even LGBT (not that LGBT itself should be persecuted either for those naturally occurring cases) who are manufactured and influenced to a degree and is ignored (perhaps intentionally?) by the press and media and hidden by government which refuse to expose and write laws preferring to use as an extrajudicial weapon of torture or murder there can be no escape from. The legal system and education system has failed to warn or protect us from such manipulations which are contrived by the Telco or government in collusion against citizens.
Human civilisation has fallen to a wretched state today, even religious institutions have used these things to profit off the unsuspecting citizentry. Be aware of what is happening and those with any ethics would work to expose the technology or methods used against our fellow human beings in this manner.
Mental Autonomy / Mental Privacy is likely to end with 2600 Mhz Telco Grids
While the infrastructure appears not much different, the technological levels have reached unbelievable levels, and thus the government needs to be HONEST alongside any with supposedly privileged knowledge that they would keep secret to control and suppress free enterprise and ultimately freedom of society and supress equality in man or to suppress those deemed too superior genetically and socially . . .
For example Anwar and Saiful Sodomy Case Malaysia, Malaysia's Minister Maid Rape Case, Prince Saud Abdulaziz Bin Nasir Al Saud's Gay Lover Killing Case, the Catholic Priests overcome with lust for children, I strongly believe that due to their strong religious and family upbringing and even some of us due to our station, political beliefs and political alignments, or threat of presenting too powerful a social or psychological, even psychic competition, or even intelligence, or even failed relationships with people having access to such devices – have been groomed into rape, murder, LGBT or even simulated mental illness specifically to weaken their voice. Let them seek justice and reclaim their reputations.
Full link here :
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=31851551532…
Pang, it may all never have been true or from yourself. Begin living life anew if it was not genetic. And liberate your 'fellow' LGBTs as well if their case is the same. What a terrible thing society and the cowards who hide behind such things are. But it certainly is not too late to inform and save others, and in doing so even yourself as well.
As least some of us can reset in privacy, those not so fortunate will have to unlink first from those who imprison to move forward. Think deep Pang, and put your mental prowess to THE TRUTH.
But I love you guys still. Keep it up! :)
I am sorry but I have found this discussion on love and marriage to be thoroughly unsophisticated, disingenuous and inane.
Edmund started with the excellent and polemical (but none-too-original) premise that love is illusory. This could have lead interestingly into an examination of the cognitive processes that determine our understanding of love vs the physiological processes and mimetic influences we often mistake (sometimes deliberately) for the same, perhaps visiting the old materialist vs idealist views of the impulses that make up this thing called love (What is love without consciousness? What is consciousness without matter? What matters without love?), finally maturing from that false binary into a pluralist view that is clearly imperative if one is to negotiate the disparity of persons with differing definitions of love attempting to operate together on a word (love) that seems to demand a singular working definition. Can it be done? How does one sustain the quantum possibilities that both affirm and deny (and challenge) each other’s definitions? This discussion instead meandered insidiously pass the panelists’ navels into useless platitudes applicable perhaps only to the speakers’ limited realities (and I say this with utter respect for their realities as well as their limitations), but none looking both inward AND outward simultaneously at how to relinquish one’s notions about love — natural and nurtured — long enough to accept that love doesn’t exist except when we make it so, and simply learn to be. The failure to discuss concepts such as the selfishness of love, the instinctive fears that propels one into relationships, and reciprocal altruism (evolutionary psychology also has much to offer) suggests that our lawyers here have much to understand about WHY they love — so all they could offer is how they love. Boring. But I give you this: Edmund comes close. Which explains my infatuation with him. Ahem.
Loving your comment, Ms Pei Ling! We are all a little crazy anyway.
"It’s about giving up a part of you and offering it to the other person without expecting anything in return. It’s about giving that person his/her happiness despite forfeiting your own and it has to be mutual of course."
Agree and that's the ironic and tricky part of romantic love isn't it? One actually needs to have the courage to love the other without expecting anything in return (despite the risks etc), and secondly finding the person who has the courage to do the same. It's time-consuming, requires consistent effort (not to mention luck) yet has no promise of ROI. It's almost godly. (In many ways, parental love is the same but parents usually expect even less in return) No wonder only crazy people are capable of such love.