One of the things that has suffered much in the last two decades is the bond that keeps couples together. The process under which this has occurred is a complex one and involves many different issues. The most ardent issue is the issue of the lines of privacy between a couple and the rest of the public and the community. To address this I'll talk about the idea of a couple in the public eye and reference a fictitious couple that represent one of many real couples whose lives are in the eyes of the public.
Benevolent couples that live their lives in the public eye are often considered angelic and this is an important concept. An angel in mythology and theology is a representative of a divine being and often not possessed of sex or is sexless. Angels as such can embody and even personify compassion as in mythology this compassion is not affected by the wiles of sexual temptation which of course has often been presented as the root of our faults.
When such a couple has their public life, they are perceived by others to be without sex or sexuality and therefore are angelic and an embodiment of compassion and civility. Such a couple have often learned the balancing act of separating their public life and private life in such a way that the issues of their personal sexuality are their secret as a couple and therefore bond them. To most such couples their privacy in such a matter is tantamount to their success as a couple as it is the one language they can speak to each other that does not fall under the scrutiny of the public eye and is their secret.
Other couples in the past tend to take this fact for granted and many people have fallen under the impression that the public life of such people is the idealistic state of being for such a couple like Mister and Missus Cleaver of a popular show in the nineteen fifties and sixties. This idea has undergone extreme transformation through the time of the sexual revolution and into modern times in the information revolution. One thing that has been lost in this translation though is the sense of such a couple having their secrets that are part of the trust and the bond between them.
It is something that nowadays is even under attack by some people as the idea of a secret possessed by couples now seems to fall under the jurisdiction of a couple's secrets under the community. It is under this pressure that many couples collapse and we end up with many who consider themselves selfies (I would fall under that category) or those who cannot form the necessary privacy and secret bearing structure of a modern relationship because that essential bonding process of a relationship is under attack.
If a couple cannot form their own secrets between each other in regard to their privacy and sexuality then one of the most important elements of bonding in a relationship cannot happen. Some of the factors for such a fact have their roots in the efforts of communication between such couples, the time constraints and pressures of modern living and the literal privacy of couples in both the local and global community in an age of information sharing.
Couples communicating with regard to their sexuality is an important thing as it is the one language that they will often share with nobody else but themselves and it is never the same language even when the people in such a relationship break up and move on. Nobody will speak the language that they shared in such a way again. When this part is not communicated and important bond cannot form and that is the bond of the mutual secret language between a couple. Often that language is the members of such a relationship each opening up about their personal likes regarding their sexuality and therefore is an imperative issue when it comes to the formation of trust and a couple's bond.
Time constraints as well are proving to make people take doses of life experiences in bite sized chunks of no more than 3 minutes or less. This may even include interactions between two people in the process of building up to a relationship and confine such communication to the equivalent of a text message without really taking the time to communicate intimately.
Lastly the level of literal privacy and the lines of that privacy is under constant fluctuation as the technology around use collects information for use in evaluating our need and the marketability of services we might be interested in in the global village. The services in the long run will ultimately benefit us and may even save our lives (analytics recognizing patterns and habits which indicate early signs of illness notifying us of such a fact or notifying us of a better deal on a product we are already in the market for hence saving us money).
Locally we are under constant scrutiny by various groups under the community who each seem nowadays to deem their entitlement to the same secrets that are the foundation of a couple forming their bond. When this boundary is opened to the groups in the community that is the same as letting these groups into your bedroom and no such groups have such a right. When such groups have such information, they can pressure each member of a couple in such a way that makes the other person in the relationship think that they've been betrayed by their spouse when in fact such a group is abusing their access in such a matter by exhibiting their knowledge of a couple's or an individual's secrets.
The same method has been used by some groups to split up family and friends as well and even careers and vocation. Most often a group exploiting such a means of affecting people are often trying to manually steer the apparent bias of their victims in their favour and against bias for each other.
This is probably one of the most pertinent factors that have affected modern relationships and have likely prevented many from occurring under the rules of whatever group possesses the private secrets of such a couple or individual. This once again prevents the forming of trust and the bond that seals the relationship and strengthens it.
The most successful (and most "angelic") couples have had the chance to and learned to protect that boundary and to keep it safe between one another and are successful setting up the boundary between the private and the public.
When the secrets of individuals become public, the process of bonding has been completely circumvented as the boundary between the couple's secrets and those that the public are aware of no longer exists, meaning in the eyes of such groups who dissolve those boundaries that the bias of the people in that relationship is not for each other and literally does not exist as bias over other persons.
One of the definitions of love is bias and therefore an attack upon one's secrets in this manner is an attack upon love in itself if those secrets that you share with your lover are an expression of your trust and their keeping those secrets is an expression of their bias towards you. That is the foundation for the formation of a bond between a couple and one that defies a link between two people who can love each other despite their gender and their culture. That bond forms the language that you speak as a couple in private and in public and can never be the same between you and anyone else.
When that is under attack by a group for whatever reasons, then the idea of love itself is also under attack. Perhaps there is something that such a group values higher than love itself as being the determining factor in relationships between two people. Love therefore is bias that is based upon personal choice and free will rather than upon genetics, blood or any other factor that is beyond our control as individuals. When you choose someone on the basis of love it is an expression of your choice and ability to exercise bias for and in favour of another human being. When you are robbed of your privacy and secrets you are therefore robbed of anything with which there is to imply bias and trust between yourself and for another human being. If your secrets are available to everyone then nothing exists as a symbolism of that bias over another human being.
If such a group ideological or otherwise can be the holder of your secrets and keep them from others, then they can imply the boundaries of that bias in their favour rather than that you would reserve for your love interest, or your family and friends or others with whom you work or have acquaintance with. Most often your spouse or love interest will have access to secrets that you would not share with your family and friends and therefore if such a group tried to commandeer your privacy in favour of their group, then they could imply your bias towards them over even your family. These are the methods under which such groups seek to break the idea of bias based upon secrets and therefore bias based upon love and therefore based upon personal choice.
If such a group gets at those secrets between you and your spouse or love interest without your permission, invasively or illegally and then attempts to strip away the very people that you would choose to share those secrets with, I would say that their possession of your secrets is not bias in their favour at all.
Such a group might be able to steal your secrets but they cannot steal your choice to bias the one you love. Most of all, it is not wrong to proclaim the one that you love at and even in doing so this love cannot be stolen.
Brian Joseph Johns