Ah, time for some serious thinking about thoughtful things. Careful, don't hurt yourself. Start slowly and work your way up. Here's a blog you can sink your fangs into.
I don't believe in marraige.
Say what?
I don't believe in marraige. Not in the sense that I refuse to recognize it's existence in an Arab we-don't-like-the-idea-of-an-Israeli-state-therefore-we-will-pretend-Isreal-isn't-there kind of way, but in the I think it's generally a bad idea kind of way. See if you can find a flaw in this reasoning... (and even though I'm bisexual I'm going to use all masculine nouns and pronouns here just for simplicity's sake, and don't come after me yelling about gender inclusive language blah blah blah. I'm lazy. Deal.)
Fact: When you marry someone, it is with the hope/expectation that your spouse will love you for the rest of his life and will always want you. (If you don't feel this way when you get married you should not get married, since that is the whole point after all.) We will start with this as the foundation for our argument. (Note the use of the Royal "we," as in "I." 12 weeks and counting!)
But what if that changes. What if your man wakes up one morning and informs you he would rather be with another woman? Would you rather..
A. Remind him of his vows and force him stay in bed/house/home/marraige with you, even though you knew he did not want to be there and was only sticking around out of a sense of obligation?
or B. Wish him well and kiss him goodbye (before kicking his sorry cheating ass out the door)?
Personally, I do not want a man who feels obligated to remain with me. I want a man who WANTS to remain with me. I want to wake up in the morning next to someone who is equally happy to wake up with me. But marraige vows don't ask "Will you continue to desire this woman the rest of your life?" They ask "Will you stay with this woman the rest of your life?" You can only promise what you will do for the next 50 years. You cannot promise how you will feel or what you will want in 50 years' time. It's not possible. People grow, they change, they sometimes change their minds and their hearts.
Given that, the whole point of the marriage vows is to ensure that people will do what they don't necessarily want, to make sure they stay put even if they change their minds, to guilt them into staying into a relationship they may no longer want. It's a contract, created for the very reason that people change their minds. If people never changed their minds, we would never have needed to invent a system of legally binding promises (a system that was invented when people had MUCH shorter life spans, and "Til death do us part" meant 20 years tops). That's not love. I want love, not guilt. I want affection, not obligation. I don't want to spend the rest of my life looking at my husband and wondering "is he here becasuse he wants to be, or is he here because he promised to be here whether he wants to or not?" True security in a relationship comes from trust, not obligation. It comes from knowing you are wanted, and the only way to know you are wanted is to give your mate the freedom to leave at any time.
Whadda ya think? Be sure to stick around for Part III: How kids change the picture.
6 comments:
Allow me to clarify. When i say "desire someone for the rest of your life" I'm not talking about desire in the molten stomach spots in your vision sense. I'm talking the desire for companionship, friendship, affection, partnership, and yes, sex too. You can't base a long-term relationship of any kind on purely sexual desires. There needs to be trust, respect, admiration. If all you require is to have your sexual desire filled, get some goddamn DDs. Batteries, that is.
I'm with you all the way. Marriage just doesn't make sense for free thinking people. Unless you and your other half happen to be from different countries but want to live together in one of them. But that's like saying TVs are handy for putting ornaments on top of.
Why can't you base a long term relationship on sexual desires? It is usually sexual urges that get you into the relationship in the first place. You notice someone's ass from across the room, not that they're kind to animals. You notice someone's smile from across the room, not that they've a wicked sense of humour. The physical is the catalyst for the rest of the relationship.
1: Thanks TB. I hope you and the Beast have a long, joyful and fulfilling relationship.
2: You can't base a LTR on purely physical desires because eventually her butt will require a forklift to move and you won't be able to get it up anyway.
3: Physical attraction isn't necessarily the catalyst for the rest. Maybe I'm wierd, but I've never been attracted to someone purely because of appearances. For example, cute though you be, I had no desire whatsoever to strip you and straddle you until I discovered that you are keen literary scholar with a searing sense of humor and a spiritual passion for rowing that matches my own. Your rock-hard ass, crooked smile and shaggy hair wouldn't have amounted to dick if you'd been a blithering moron with a penchant for fox hunting. It's really NOT all about the looks, hon.
I'm a guy. I'm shallow. I'm cancerian. I think that I can fix anything that's broken. I'm an idiot. See NBHF.
yes, no, yes, yes, no.
Post a Comment