I recently attended a family birthday celebration.
Sat at my table was an intriguing group of people.
There were young women dressed as though they had been
stamped with a conformity mark of the 1950s; dressed in twin set and pearls. I
was seriously worried that they were about to pop off to the hairdresser for a
blue rinse and perm – at the age of 25.
And to what did these young women aspire? 2.4 children
and a happy marriage.
That was their raison d’etre. That is all they actually
wanted, and every social event seemed to be a possibility for meeting up with the
intended one.
The young woman started to chat. Her sister leaned over
to me and said, “She’s got a new man!”
Intrigued as to where she had met the wonderful new bod, I
asked her a few questions and she explained that she had been at a party and
just clicked with this bloke. He seemed pleasant enough according to this young
woman; a little quiet and reserved but essentially, decent company.
“He’s not quite the man of my dreams, and is certainly
not marriage material” said the woman, “but I suppose he will do for now”.
And I sank deep into my chair, only to pipe up, “But is
he a good snogger and more?” to which she smiled and said, “Definitely”.
At the other end of the table was an older man who was
explaining to another who he was and how he was connected to the Birthday Boy.
He told his companion that he had been happily married for over forty years but
had been trying to find a blond mistress for years – to no avail.
He was joking, of course, but was he? Satisfied with
conformity and comfortable living he may have been but secretly was his jocular
statement a real aspiration?
Immediately opposite me was a woman who had plenty to
say. She appeared to be genuinely interested in people and listened attentively
when others spoke. Explaining her history (isn’t it intriguing how much people
feel a need to justify themselves through a regurgitation of their life
story?), she mentioned that she had been married for twenty years before the
relationship disintegrated. Her mother-in-law had responded to the news of her
impending divorce to say that she always knew the marriage would fail. She had
said as much on the day that she had married.
The woman laughed and said, “Actually I thought that 20
years was a sign of a relatively successful relationship!”
And she was right. Twenty years is a success of sorts.
The greatest success, of course, is for all concerned to recognise that it had
been a good innings but it was now time to return to the pavilion and wait for
the next outing to the crease.
The same woman was there with her second husband.
Now this is something that I am genuinely interested in.
What is it that makes people marry for a second time? Those who do it for a
third, fourth or fifth in my humble opinion need to be sectioned!
Obviously, this excludes those who have lost their first
spouse to death. I understand that some people like marriage and want to be
married but if the first marriage has faltered, why on earth would you do it
all over again?
Suzanne Moore wrote about marriage and civil partnerships
in the newspaper this week and echoed my views from a couple of blogs ago,
taking it a step further.
What is the point of it all?
In the article, she rightly argues against the
Conservatives announcement that they were going to “allow” gay marriages.
She rightly argued that this isn’t a delightful dose of
liberalism but a shackle to the homosexuals of the world to conform to the one
thing that everyone allegedly aspires to, i.e. a lifelong marriage.
This is conformity and conservatism personified, and all
the Tories are doing is enabling those who have been seriously abused and
rejected in society to join the rest of us brainwashed masses in participating
in the holy state of monogamy.
“Gone are the days of transgression or even deviation from the norm. Marriage is an institution set up to protect property and patriarchal rights that we choose to overlay with our need for sex, romance, passion and companionship. Extending this right to gay people may seem generous, and may still be seen by the haters as destroying the sanctity of marriage, but something else is going on. This is not about conservatives accepting homosexuality, but about making homosexuality conservative.”
What the hell have we come to?
Moore continues within the article to explain that she has issues with civil partnerships as well. She also argues that there should be the ability to have a straight civil partnership so that one can choose between having a civil partnership and being married.
I’m not sure what point there is in the differentiation.
Of course, a civil partnership between either heterosexual or homosexual
couples could be a legal security – in which case, why bother going through a ceremony?
Why not just nip down to the Town Hall and sign a couple of documents?
If you want to declare your love and commitment to one
another, then you can go the whole hog and place the official signing of
documents within the marriage, declaring yourself off the shelf and unable to
love outside that marriage ever again.
But honestly, is getting married really viable? Can
anyone be so committed to another person that they can sign their life away
with the complete totality of a life dedicated to one other person – knowing
this for sure, as a fact?
It may possibly be the case in the twilight years but at
the age when most people enter into matrimony I am completely convinced that
this cannot be.
Moore suggests that there should be another way whereby
if people want to sign a contract with one another or to declare their
commitment, then perhaps they could have a ‘pick and mix’ of options for the
ceremony or document signing.
Would more people go for this option? Possibly but it
still does not overcome the idea that one person for life for many people is
not what they want.
A friend of mine wanted to get married once but was only
prepared to do so if his wife-to-be committed to regular sex, and on the
proviso that if her interest and frequency to sex diminished in any way, then
he was entitled to look elsewhere for that.
The married.
Needless to say, she went off sex and he found sexual
stimulation elsewhere. So they ended up getting divorced.
But what would have happened should she have agreed to
this in writing? Would they have stayed together for longer had it been signed
and sealed, stating that this was an integral part of the contract? Would they
have happily worked, lived and loved together with a few ground rules forever?
I’m not completely convinced on this either but it may
have worked.
Take polyamory – ah yes, back to that one. Wouldn’t it be
easier for all concerned if the ground rules are established at the beginning;
where everyone concerned knows the precise situation and that the established
relationship is clearly the most significant? (hee hee)
Wouldn’t polyamory work more effectively if those
involved in the initial relationship were more or less committed to a
continuous relationship, with others being involved but not taking away from
the first relationship in longevity or intimacy?
It is just not that simple and every part of my rational
mind knows it is as such.
You cannot legislate for feelings. You cannot sign
contracts for a future that really could be just an illusion. You can be
completely committed to a relationship but still not know what is about to bite
you on the backside. You cannot rule out anything.
I like friendships that last. I am actually very
committed to quality and long-lasting friendships.
I like the idea of meeting someone and knowing that they
are going to be in your life, possibly, or even more than possibly, for the
rest of your life.
I am just not sure that signing any piece of paper makes
that friendship or relationship more viable and more likely to last for a
lifetime, no matter what type of friendship or relationship it is.
Of course, we all want security apparently, and this is
what we are actually looking for in a marriage or a civil partnership. The
declaration of love is almost an aside. What we are actually saying is, “Sign
this paper as a guarantee that I am going to be provided for should you decide
to fuck off with someone else”.
Those who do not desire or need that security do not need
to get married, and in some cases will only do so to placate or please that
most significant person in their lives.
So what would this alternative non-conformist civil
partnership pick and mix have in it?
Who knows but perhaps there could be a tick list of
aspirations rather than complete expectations,
·
Thou shalt fuck whoever thou wants
·
Thou shalt be free to have dinner three times a
week with another
·
Thou shalt sleep with the designated civil
partner more than others
·
Thou shalt insist on independent financial
arrangements whereby either party live independently from the other, and
possibly in different accommodation
·
Thou shalt ensure the financial security of one
another whilst having a pot of money available for your own personal use that
outweighs any joint pot
·
Thou shalt go on holiday with the civil partner
at least as frequently as with others
·
Thou shalt aim to bring children into the
partnership with equal access at all times and this will not be contested in a
court of law. This is an absolute
·
Thou shalt abide by all human rights articles,
looking together at the full list and the implications of partnership prior to
signing any document
·
Thou shalt be committed to compassionate living,
ensuring that at all times empathy, trust and lovingkindness is the absolute of
the partnership
And so the list would go on, but it still does not
resolve this entire issue of signing a piece of paper that essentially ties you
to another person, and no matter how much you love someone or how well you feel
as though you know them, can this ever be a realistic commitment?
Maybe I am too cynical.
If only the entire world was slightly more enlightened,
including myself.
If the world would ‘conform’ to my non-conformity, then I
would be such a happier person, but I cannot convince myself that the world is
ready for such a relaxation of the expected mode of behaviour. I cannot
convince myself that the people at the centre of my own issues are really as
non-conformist as they suggest.
Suzanne Moore states that she does not want to get
married or enter into a civil partnership.
“Personally, I don't like marriage. I share the feminist critique of its history of sexism and patriarchy. I would not want to get married. But as a democrat and human rights defender, I support the right of others to marry. This is a simple issue of equality. The ban on same-sex marriage is discrimination and discrimination is wrong, full stop.”
I am with her but I go a step further.
The reason that we do not get to know ourselves, the
reason why we do not always believe in ourselves or develop a greater sense of
equilibrium is that we have been told throughout our lives that there is one way
to be, i.e. in a relationship, and if we are either not in a relationship or unhappy
within one, then we do not feel fulfilled.
We do not allow time to find ourselves before we find
others. We cannot know who we are at a young age. We are not completely sure of
who we are at any time in our lives though I am convinced that those who are
older have a far greater idea of who they are.
My point is that it is bordering on an infringement of
human rights.
Consider this.
If the default position was that we did not expect or
aspire to part of a couple or a partnership, then would be more engaged in
finding ourselves and loving ourselves, and in doing so, I suspect we would all
be better partners and friends should we choose to spend the majority of our
time with one or many others.
If we choose to
commit to one person for the rest of our lives, then that is a choice. If we
choose to commit to one person for a part of our lives then that too would be a
choice.
If we choose to have multiple relationships that also
would be a lot easier because everyone would be truly independent in their own
right with no expectations and therefore would be far more contented with the
sharing of each other.
Those accused of serial monogamy where it is suggested that
they are lacking in some way would not be stuck with this abhorrent label.
If we chose to formalise such arrangements of partnership
as a security for either the individuals involved or the children from such a
partnership, then that makes a certain amount of sense.
But ultimately, our lives are own and that is not really
legislated for at all.
On a personal note, I know what is right but I am also
very aware that I am living under a brainwashed existence where decades of
conformity are gradually being eroded. But it is never just about my own
personal journey. It is about the views, expectations and assumptions of others
too, and that is where it is more difficult.
I am not sure that I can be as non-conformist as I want
to because of the expectation of friends and family. I am not completely happy
with others being non-conformist because of onlookers assumptions about their
friendships with others – because it is not just me who is brainwashed.
Whether we like it or not, people think and assume no
matter how many times we tell them that there is nothing more than friendship
happening. Other people look and put two and two together to make the wholly
conformed number of one.
With my solution being independence for all, this would
be eradicated, I think!
But then I am a little bit of an idealist.
Returning to the people that I met at the family
celebration, I wonder what they would make of the non-conformist way of living.
The 25 year old woman would just enjoy the relationship
she is about to have with this man without worrying about his credentials as a
father or lover. She would just get on with enjoying the snogs and the fucks
immediately.
The older guy would go and have his dalliance or even a
longer term relationship with his younger blond. The twice married woman would
not have had to go through the difficulties of divorce and would not have had
to marry once more unless that had been her choice.
As for me, well my life would be so much happier.
This non-marriage existence in life does not and would
not mean that you could no longer have one significant person in your life. That
could still happen but it would not be seen as the default. Furthermore, even
if you did find a significant other or a soul-mate, it would not preclude
others enjoying their company, their sexuality, their vitality because they can
still maintain a relationship with you and you would still be contented because
ultimately your life is about you.
Perhaps this is my real aspiration in life – for me, for
all.
I am sure many would see flaws and pitfalls but it is
certainly worth considering, and thank you Ms Moore for making me think a
little further into it.
No comments:
Post a Comment