Maria has an ‘open marriage’. But to me, this sounds like an oxymoron. Doesn’t that shiny ring on her finger preclude all those passionate affairs with other lovers? Isn’t this the reason we’re barraged with statistics like, ‘50% of all marriages end in divorce.’
Isn’t sexual infidelity a reason for ending a relationship?
Apparently not. Maria says her husband satisfies all her emotional and intellectual needs, but she separates the physical side of the relationship. This is an intriguing concept, especially for someone who doesn’t consider marriage a viable option. Indeed, I’m currently living with my Dutch boyfriend, and cohabitation is the extent of the commitment I desire. I want sex, obviously, and I want to wake up next to him, and I want to occasionally get drunk and stumble around with him singing pirate ballads and annoying the neighbors, but I don’t want a ring on my finger!
And yet Maria succeeds in changing the very definition of marriage. She takes this ancient idea of making your connection to someone else public, and molds it into something that fits her and her husband uniquely. Her marriage is a well-tailored suit. Knowing yourself, or your partner, well enough to be able to structure your relationship accordingly is an amazing thing. Think of all the jealousy and tears that could be prevented by stating at the beginning: ‘I can love you and only you, but I want to be free to express myself sexually with different partners’.
Now, for my parents, this doesn’t fly; in fact, the notion doesn’t even have feathers! Regardless of the fact that they’re now middle-aged hippies, their concept of marriage remains the static, dictionary-bound model. One could argue that this is no less meaningful than a modern reinterpretation, but there is something striking about embracing a social custom, and yet first tweaking it to meet your needs. I could throw in an analogy about renovating a house rather than tearing down the old one, but perhaps it’s better not to reduce something quasi-religious to architecture.
In any case, it seems I took the easy way out. Instead of thoughtfully regarding marriage as a public manifestation of love, I ran it over with my úber-liberal ideals and didn’t even glance in the rear-view mirror to see it squirming in the road. But taking a look at it now requires a few background clues: arguably, monogamy is the issue at the center of this debate.
And here we get into something I’ve often wondered about: Is the human animal biologically programmed to participate in monogamous relationships? And are those relationships meant to be ‘until death do us part’? I understand the commonly held view that swans and dolphins mate for life, and perhaps a variety of other animals on which I’m certainly no expert. But is marriage only a social construct? What of the harems of India? The geishas of Japan? What of the Isle of Lesbos? Are humans actually fighting their physiological urgings by embracing fidelity?
In the Christian tradition, or at least in the southern United States’ ‘Bible Belt’, marriage is seen as the spiritual fusing of two unique people who supposedly become one. A little bit sci-fi, but ok. From a romantic point of view, the idea is quite appealing. And if we accept Plato’s story of the hermaphrodite halved at birth, what could be closer to perfection than being rejoined with your ‘Other Half’?
Unfortunately, this completion of the hermaphrodite seldom seems to turn out as blissfully as it should. Relationships seem to be a constant struggle for communication, validation, and an expectation of that ever-elusive telepathic connection. (‘Why doesn’t she come over here and seduce me? Can’t she see that I want her? Fine then, I’ll just continue washing the dishes until she gets the message!’)
I wonder if Maria’s marriage enjoys all the quirks the rest of us face. Perhaps I’m granting the sexual side of a relationship too much power. But then again, as my Grandma used to say: ‘Honey, you’ll either fight about money or about sex. And if you’re really unlucky, you’ll fight about both!’ In retrospect, these seem like wise words. And to be perfectly honest, in our little flat we spend far too much time adding up receipts from Albert Hein and debating about whether my razors count as a ‘joint purchase’. Come on, he likes it when I shave my legs, right?) So in the end it seems that whether you decide to have an ‘open marriage’ or sign a pre-nup or have a vasectomy, despite the fact that you may trim away one issue, there will always be another to take its place. The world of small frustrations is universally accessible to couples, and if you really can’t come up with anything else, there are always the dirty dishes to fight over.”
Dorothy Parker, MSc Architecture, is from the United States. Her next column will be published in Delta 37. She can be e-mailed at: onbezorgd@gmail.com.
Maria has an ‘open marriage’. But to me, this sounds like an oxymoron. Doesn’t that shiny ring on her finger preclude all those passionate affairs with other lovers? Isn’t this the reason we’re barraged with statistics like, ‘50% of all marriages end in divorce.’ Isn’t sexual infidelity a reason for ending a relationship?
Apparently not. Maria says her husband satisfies all her emotional and intellectual needs, but she separates the physical side of the relationship. This is an intriguing concept, especially for someone who doesn’t consider marriage a viable option. Indeed, I’m currently living with my Dutch boyfriend, and cohabitation is the extent of the commitment I desire. I want sex, obviously, and I want to wake up next to him, and I want to occasionally get drunk and stumble around with him singing pirate ballads and annoying the neighbors, but I don’t want a ring on my finger!
And yet Maria succeeds in changing the very definition of marriage. She takes this ancient idea of making your connection to someone else public, and molds it into something that fits her and her husband uniquely. Her marriage is a well-tailored suit. Knowing yourself, or your partner, well enough to be able to structure your relationship accordingly is an amazing thing. Think of all the jealousy and tears that could be prevented by stating at the beginning: ‘I can love you and only you, but I want to be free to express myself sexually with different partners’.
Now, for my parents, this doesn’t fly; in fact, the notion doesn’t even have feathers! Regardless of the fact that they’re now middle-aged hippies, their concept of marriage remains the static, dictionary-bound model. One could argue that this is no less meaningful than a modern reinterpretation, but there is something striking about embracing a social custom, and yet first tweaking it to meet your needs. I could throw in an analogy about renovating a house rather than tearing down the old one, but perhaps it’s better not to reduce something quasi-religious to architecture.
In any case, it seems I took the easy way out. Instead of thoughtfully regarding marriage as a public manifestation of love, I ran it over with my úber-liberal ideals and didn’t even glance in the rear-view mirror to see it squirming in the road. But taking a look at it now requires a few background clues: arguably, monogamy is the issue at the center of this debate.
And here we get into something I’ve often wondered about: Is the human animal biologically programmed to participate in monogamous relationships? And are those relationships meant to be ‘until death do us part’? I understand the commonly held view that swans and dolphins mate for life, and perhaps a variety of other animals on which I’m certainly no expert. But is marriage only a social construct? What of the harems of India? The geishas of Japan? What of the Isle of Lesbos? Are humans actually fighting their physiological urgings by embracing fidelity?
In the Christian tradition, or at least in the southern United States’ ‘Bible Belt’, marriage is seen as the spiritual fusing of two unique people who supposedly become one. A little bit sci-fi, but ok. From a romantic point of view, the idea is quite appealing. And if we accept Plato’s story of the hermaphrodite halved at birth, what could be closer to perfection than being rejoined with your ‘Other Half’?
Unfortunately, this completion of the hermaphrodite seldom seems to turn out as blissfully as it should. Relationships seem to be a constant struggle for communication, validation, and an expectation of that ever-elusive telepathic connection. (‘Why doesn’t she come over here and seduce me? Can’t she see that I want her? Fine then, I’ll just continue washing the dishes until she gets the message!’)
I wonder if Maria’s marriage enjoys all the quirks the rest of us face. Perhaps I’m granting the sexual side of a relationship too much power. But then again, as my Grandma used to say: ‘Honey, you’ll either fight about money or about sex. And if you’re really unlucky, you’ll fight about both!’ In retrospect, these seem like wise words. And to be perfectly honest, in our little flat we spend far too much time adding up receipts from Albert Hein and debating about whether my razors count as a ‘joint purchase’. Come on, he likes it when I shave my legs, right?) So in the end it seems that whether you decide to have an ‘open marriage’ or sign a pre-nup or have a vasectomy, despite the fact that you may trim away one issue, there will always be another to take its place. The world of small frustrations is universally accessible to couples, and if you really can’t come up with anything else, there are always the dirty dishes to fight over.”
Dorothy Parker, MSc Architecture, is from the United States. Her next column will be published in Delta 37. She can be e-mailed at: onbezorgd@gmail.com.
Comments are closed.