Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Are You COMMITTED to the INSTITUTION of Marriage?

OK, I am going to acknowledge off the block this post is going to piss off most women. However, I was doing some research on marriage and several things made me burst out laughing (bol).

Two words jumped out at me. To begin, the word institution immediately conjures "One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest"- padded walls, restraints and one day bleeding into the next while in a drug-induced stupor. Now there are many definitions of the word- and it might mean different things to different people- and hell, the fact that MENTAL institution is the first thing I think of when I see the word might be telling.

A society formed for religious, social, educational or similar purpose- hmmm. Nothing about romance in there at all.

The reason I bring THAT up- is that I’ve long wondered when the "romantic" notion of marriage was introduced and how it took hold. How did we come from parents bribing a family to allow their son to marry their daughter with a dowry to dreaming of weddings and proposals on bended knee?

Where did all of this "He's the one" start? In the beginning it was rather clinical- arranged even. Marriage was a method by which families joined noble blood lines, increased social status, combined wealth and offered an acceptable frame work for procreation.

I thought back to Shakespearian times and even read through some of the sonnets, which comprise some of the most vivid articulations of longing and desire, yet very little talk of marriage. It is as if, even then, romance, desire, longing and lust were part of pursuing. We know Shakespeare was the master of star-crossed love stories, want and desperate love generated by unfortunate and impossible circumstances. The pursuit was of one that could not be had. The longing often for unrequited love.

It was not uncommon for bards of talent to be commissioned by men or women to woo others. It is, in my estimation, the principle reason there is speculation William was gay. He's been commissioned by a noble gentleman to pursue a young, flaxen-haired man and was no doubt quite successful. Ah, the power of the written word- a true seduction in the absence of dating services, the Internet, cell phones and texting.

So who introduced the notion of romance into marriage? When did we start longing for the INSTITUTION of marriage with the man or woman we loved and adored?

I was watching some westerns the other day- yes, part of the So Very Clever initiative- and found it interesting the women all spoke of their husbands poorly- "I married him for money- pure and simple- what’s a girl to do?"- while stealing lusty kisses from the ranch hand. It's the same saga over and over throughout history- the woman who falls in love with the chauffer after decades of neglect by her wealthy husband.

I believe it was Hollywood that began this crusade to incorporate romance into marriage. Think about Disney- all of the romances involve a clandestine or misunderstood romance that ended in marriage (often a comedy of errors). So, then did women start believing that marriage would elevate them to a pedestal with her husband? Is that where women want to be? If they are elevated, do they become complacent?

I think it may have been an accident. Perhaps romantic love was so unusual for the time the portrayal of such in movies was almost taboo- and, in that, very alluring.

What is the net result of this allure? Unreasonable expectations. It would seem marriage worked just fine when it was arranged- the functions were served- continue royal blood line, procreate. Simple. It was accepted the men had courtesans or paramours and the women were likely not growing grass under their feet. Illicit and dangerous liaisons with other men abounded. However- there were no divorces- what was the point? Everyone was happy. The families, the state, society, the husband, the wife. I am sure the kids were, at that time, still byproducts of marriage and not revered the way they are today. Born to ascend or to work and contribute- not much more, if they survived childbirth and their young years.

Now, we spend our young lives dreaming of the perfect mate. Not sure what that really means, as our version of that is ever changing. Then adolescent and post-adolescent years are geared toward experimenting and disappointment. Then at some point between (hopefully) the age of 18 and 50, we find the ONE. What does that mean? Well, to each person, something different, no doubt.

How often to people spend time discussing expectations beyond the courtship? How much time if any? The courtship is lovely and as the euphoria stage ends and reality begins to set in, there is still no hint of actual marriage in the relationship. It is still a dating and elective relationship. Easily (theoretically) ended if expectations do not come in line.

Now, my question is- why is marriage the apex of a relationship? Shouldn’t love be the apex? What happens if you get married and fall out of love? You’d be naïve to think that doesn’t happen. "And they lived happily ever after" doesn’t work for everyone. So, doesn't it make more sense to elect to be in a loving relationship? Or do we need to be COMMITTED?

That was the other funny word that leapt out at me during my research. COMMITTED- like to a mental INSTITUTION. Interesting all these references to marriage and insanity. Let's go back to the top when I said the word "institution" conjured images of padded walls, restraints and one day bleeding into the next as if in a drug induced stupor. Sounds like a LOT of marriages I know of. Telling one another what they can and can't do- and complacency as we drift through our days hoping for anything that will break up the monotony.

OK, I’m not beating it to death- I'm all for healthy and productive unions. However, the apex is love- not marriage.

2 comments:

  1. I think the difficulty stems from the fact that there are at least four different “definitions” of marriage, or perhaps three different types of marriage.

    Marrying for Money and/or Status: This is the oldest version, where females were a commodity sold by their parents for property, gifts and social status. This still exists, but the more contemporary version of this is when the females independently choose to marry for money, security, or status.

    The Biblical Definition of Marriage: invented by God in Genesis 2:22. This definition is based on selflessness, and aspiring to love your spouse like Jesus loved the church. In my opinion this is the only “version” of marriage that is a true commitment. For better or for worse, at all costs and no matter what. This is a commitment to try to love one other person as much as God loves you. It’s a bitch, but has the biggest emotional payoff.

    Contemporary Marriage: “You’re hot and funny. We’ve been dating for awhile. I think getting married is the next step. If it doesn’t work out, we can just get divorced like everyone else.” The rules around this version of marriage are subject to change on a daily basis. You only have to conform to behavior within societal expectations. Which means that nowadays, you can basically do anything, unless you get caught. This is less about morality and transparency, and more about feeling good but not getting caught.

    Common-law marriage: An interpersonal domestic relationship of habit legally recognized in some jurisdictions as a marriage even though no ceremony or binding contract occurs. Think hippies and hillbillies.

    You have to start by defining what kind of marriage you have, and what the “rules” are. Most people don’t do this. But if you don’t do this, how could you possibly be surprised when things are difficult, or expectations are not in alignment? That’s simply illogical. That’s like telling someone “make me a cake” and then being disappointed or pissed off because you wanted angel food but got red velvet. You just have yourself to blame at that point.

    My long-winded point is this: there are so many different kinds of marriages, you can’t make a sweeping generalization with any measure of accuracy. If your spouse has no problems with you fisting the Raider girls or being a serial killer, and you agree to that up front, I can’t say your “marriage” is any better or worse than another. Just be sure to invite me over for dinner once in awhile because I think you’ll have some GREAT stories.

    To be honest, you do sound pretty anti-marriage. And that’s okay. But it’s not marriage’s fault. Your marriage can be whatever you and your spouse agree to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eric-
    Thank you for spelling it out for us. This is a wonderful observation- so wonderful (and hilarious) I am thinking of turning it into a guest post. I think what it comes down to is "expectation"- however, there is something to be said for marrying so young that you don't know yourself enough to truly commit to the "commitment" of marriage.
    We do the most "growing" between 18 and 30 in my estimation- that is why we find out what we are made of- on our own without the safety net of our parents.
    Perhaps I need to do a "Modest Proposal" post again and see if it is on par with beating a hornet's nest with a stick. Thank you for the inspiration and insight- you are indeed So Very Clever.
    x
    CG

    ReplyDelete

Search This Blog