A Natural Woman feels like what, exactly?

It's been an interesting week on Facebook. One of my friends has been posting some really fun articles and photos that have somehow launched a series of conversations involving a diverse group of people that chase so many rabbits, they end in a place miles away from the original topic. It is fascinating to trace the conversation and the path it took. Sometimes you can see how one thought segued into another. Sometimes they are random leaps that give you whiplash.

The reason I bring this up is that one of the posts (which started as an article from the Onion about the counter-intuitiveness of the success of the Edible bouquet company and became a discussion about monastic life and celibacy and how unnatural that was) made me think about what really is a natural state for our relationships.

In the course of the debate, this statement was made: "Of all the sexual perversions out there, celibacy is the only unnatural one." I, being me and being the word geek that I am, felt the need to qualify that on the basis of semantics. I argued that, since perversions are, by definition, an aberration of a natural or normal state, celibacy couldn't be the only unnatural perversion. (It's redundant.) I stated that it would be more accurate to say: "Of all the sexual proclivities out there, celibacy is the only perversion." That launched another etymological and philosophical debate that concluded with a quote from Love & Rockets: "You cannot go against nature b/c when you do go against nature that's a part of nature too."

Now, I've heard a number of people (mostly men) argue that monogamy, and specifically marriage, is an unnatural state -- that only a handful of creatures on the planet mate for life. While that may be true, I think that is a hollow argument for a fear of commitment rather than a biological incapacity for it. I think the primary fallacy is that "mating" is a very different thing from "relating," and as humans we have a need that transcends scratching the proverbial sexual itch. We might not be designed for sexual exclusivity, but we are certainly made to need a companion who offers a consistent emotional/mental/spiritual connection. The ideal is to find them both in one person, but that doesn't always happen. If it does, then by all means, mate -- and relate -- for life. The thing is, we are so bound by societal roles and expectations that we frequently take a ball-peen hammer to that square peg, determined that it will fit the round hole, come hell or high water. THAT is unnatural.

So, I guess my advice, for whatever it's worth, is to take things for what they are. Let them become what they will be. Don't force an unnatural state -- whatever one you may think you need to have -- and then you might actually have something that withstands all the other unnatural things we attempt.