A la carte
Love, marriage, and kids.
My outlook and attitude towards all have varied considerably through the course of my life. Swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other and back. Always heavily charged with deep, complicated emotions.
For some reason, at some point when I was in Hong Kong, I had come to the discovery/decision that yes, eventually I DO want to have kids.
One might laugh at me: Of course, all women want kids! But, despite a fairly (perhaps unexpectedly) strong maternal streak in me, I had almost always deeply ambivalent about the idea of having children, and being responsible for another human being. (bar the time I was with MTB).
The decision was a relief—it was nice to finally that yes, I actually do want to have a child/children one day.
The questions that remained were: how to go about it, how to raise (s)he/them.
I have a very a la carte attitude towards life. To me, wanting to have a child does not equate to wanting to marry someone. That entails far more risk than I can even begin to contemplate, even now. The idea of the pain, suffering, hurt, betrayal that might (invariably, inevitably, inexorable) await in that bottomless abyss that is a 40, 50, 60-year long marriage, sends me into shock.
But I've been thinking increasingly of what my friend IE (of Land's End, Paris, and sky-diving) reiterated when I met her this weekend.
She too, is against marriage. She thinks that people should have a 5 year contractual relationship, akin to marriage, but only for 5 year terms. You agree to be totally committed during the period and work out any issues, as seriously as if you were in a marriage. But at the end of each 5 year term, you can decide if you want to renew your relationship, or go your separate ways, without obligations or judgements.
When she first proposed this slightly less than a year ago while we were at Land's End, I found the idea very daring, innovative, but could still see the side of the traditionalists, and thought the idea wasn't very feasible. But increasingly, while I still see where the traditionalists are coming from, I'm far more inclined to subscribe to her school of thought.
The truth is, we can change so much in a fairly short space of time. People grow apart, get bored, get resentful. I can barely bring myself to stay at my job for three years, can't decide what I want to do five years from now... so it's actually cruel (and ridiculous) to force a person to decide who (s)he wants to be with for the rest of her/his life, and to bind them together till death to them part (in theory).
One can cite divorce statistics to disprove the veracity of the "death do you part" claim. Point taken. But the fact that the average effective longevity of marriages is not 40 years, but very possibly more like 10, 15 years, is not a reason to uphold the institution of marriage.
The problem I have with marriage is the pretense it makes of forever-after. The liars it makes of 50% of us (or whatever the statistics are) by promising to love and cherish one person in sickness and health, good and bad, better and worse, till death do you part.
I'd rather call a spade a spade. I'd rather say: I love you as deeply, truly, and to the limit of what I can envisage now. And I hope I will be able to love, care for and respect you for as long as possible, I hope it will be for the rest of my life. That for the rest of my life, after this crazy I-want-to-bonk-your-brains-out passion fades, you'll still be my best friend, the first one I want to confide in, the first one I run to, the first one I want to share my joy with, my soul mate, the one I care for. And that is all I promise: that now, this perfect forever-after future is what I want and truly wish for. And that I will always be honest with you and expect the same from you. If one day, one or the other is bored, disillusioned, disappointed, if too many disappointments, compromises have led to too many recriminations, build-up of resentment, then we agree now, that when that day comes we will take a step back agree to disagree and walk away as friends, with a warm hug and a goodbye kiss, so you can both remain intact, live separate and maybe happier lives with new loves. If there is a child, you agree to work out a way to resolve the issue amicably.
But don't pretend to promise something that you clearly have no control over.
That's why I'm actually For "living-in-sin", so to speak, but with legal recognition of the partners' rights, equivalent to marriage. Because, right now, I think the legal rights gained by marriage is the key argument for the perpetuation of the hypocritical institution.
My outlook and attitude towards all have varied considerably through the course of my life. Swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other and back. Always heavily charged with deep, complicated emotions.
For some reason, at some point when I was in Hong Kong, I had come to the discovery/decision that yes, eventually I DO want to have kids.
One might laugh at me: Of course, all women want kids! But, despite a fairly (perhaps unexpectedly) strong maternal streak in me, I had almost always deeply ambivalent about the idea of having children, and being responsible for another human being. (bar the time I was with MTB).
The decision was a relief—it was nice to finally that yes, I actually do want to have a child/children one day.
The questions that remained were: how to go about it, how to raise (s)he/them.
I have a very a la carte attitude towards life. To me, wanting to have a child does not equate to wanting to marry someone. That entails far more risk than I can even begin to contemplate, even now. The idea of the pain, suffering, hurt, betrayal that might (invariably, inevitably, inexorable) await in that bottomless abyss that is a 40, 50, 60-year long marriage, sends me into shock.
But I've been thinking increasingly of what my friend IE (of Land's End, Paris, and sky-diving) reiterated when I met her this weekend.
She too, is against marriage. She thinks that people should have a 5 year contractual relationship, akin to marriage, but only for 5 year terms. You agree to be totally committed during the period and work out any issues, as seriously as if you were in a marriage. But at the end of each 5 year term, you can decide if you want to renew your relationship, or go your separate ways, without obligations or judgements.
When she first proposed this slightly less than a year ago while we were at Land's End, I found the idea very daring, innovative, but could still see the side of the traditionalists, and thought the idea wasn't very feasible. But increasingly, while I still see where the traditionalists are coming from, I'm far more inclined to subscribe to her school of thought.
The truth is, we can change so much in a fairly short space of time. People grow apart, get bored, get resentful. I can barely bring myself to stay at my job for three years, can't decide what I want to do five years from now... so it's actually cruel (and ridiculous) to force a person to decide who (s)he wants to be with for the rest of her/his life, and to bind them together till death to them part (in theory).
One can cite divorce statistics to disprove the veracity of the "death do you part" claim. Point taken. But the fact that the average effective longevity of marriages is not 40 years, but very possibly more like 10, 15 years, is not a reason to uphold the institution of marriage.
The problem I have with marriage is the pretense it makes of forever-after. The liars it makes of 50% of us (or whatever the statistics are) by promising to love and cherish one person in sickness and health, good and bad, better and worse, till death do you part.
I'd rather call a spade a spade. I'd rather say: I love you as deeply, truly, and to the limit of what I can envisage now. And I hope I will be able to love, care for and respect you for as long as possible, I hope it will be for the rest of my life. That for the rest of my life, after this crazy I-want-to-bonk-your-brains-out passion fades, you'll still be my best friend, the first one I want to confide in, the first one I run to, the first one I want to share my joy with, my soul mate, the one I care for. And that is all I promise: that now, this perfect forever-after future is what I want and truly wish for. And that I will always be honest with you and expect the same from you. If one day, one or the other is bored, disillusioned, disappointed, if too many disappointments, compromises have led to too many recriminations, build-up of resentment, then we agree now, that when that day comes we will take a step back agree to disagree and walk away as friends, with a warm hug and a goodbye kiss, so you can both remain intact, live separate and maybe happier lives with new loves. If there is a child, you agree to work out a way to resolve the issue amicably.
But don't pretend to promise something that you clearly have no control over.
That's why I'm actually For "living-in-sin", so to speak, but with legal recognition of the partners' rights, equivalent to marriage. Because, right now, I think the legal rights gained by marriage is the key argument for the perpetuation of the hypocritical institution.
1 Comments:
all of this may (will) change when you find your love.
lol
:']
- Steve
By
Anonymous, at 1:57 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home