May 12, 2011

CHARLIE

So since everybody’s talking about nuptials this month on MetAnotherFrog.com, I’m going to delve into some of the history behind the institution.

Firstly, let’s start with a definition of marriage. Interestingly, due to the huge range of cultural differences and many uses for it there’s no universal agreement on it’s definition. Some argue that it’s about creating a durable and legal obligation between two (or more) parties. Others use the term to refer to a framework that gives a shared legal right to any children born to the female in the union. And my personal favourite is the utterly unromantic definition offered up by Duran Bell, who states that marriage is:

“…a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men.”

Beyond the strange use of  the term “men” to refer to both males and females Bell’s definition is quite intriguing, as it covers polyamourous relationships in addition to defining man and wife by role rather than gender. Essentially, it makes a wedding  a declaration of sexual access rights. This point of view would give a really interesting new slant on writing your own vows.

“I, Charlie, do solemnly swear to love honour and fuck you for better or worse, on fat days and through hangovers as long as we both shall live.”

Ahhh, sweet romance…

The perfect segue to our next topic, romantic marriage. This notion of love matches and marrying your “soul mate” is a very recent invention. I have been known to suggest that this ideal of “romantic love” as a reason for marriage was the invention of Hollywood. Not modern day Hollywood – I don’t blame Tom Cruise for it.  It has been around a little longer than that.

You see, in the 1920s American popular culture suddenly started to include date night and the notion of romantic love became something to seek out and hold onto. Prior to that time love was seen as an unnecessary part of a marriage contract (even an inconvenience) since the contract was about possession, inheritance or simple housekeeping. Throughout the 30s and 40s, the ideal of romantic love gained further ground as it was a great diversion through times of war and recession.

And then just like that, “all you need is love”…
.

.

In the late 20^th Century, as women became financially independent, the original reasons for marriage as an institution for a girl to be cared for away from her father’s home – the understanding being that she would pay for her room and lodging with housekeeping, sex and children – have all but died out in Western cultures. Today, marriage is seen mainly (at least in less cynical circles) as a declaration of love for your mate. And now everyone wants in on the party…

Movements for equal rights for same-sex marriages are picking up steam as our cultural understanding of the meaning of marriage changes. To my mind despite the nonsense some folks want to put out as arguments against it, if marriage is about love and two people (of whatever sex) love each other, we should call it marriage (especially if they have a free bar at the reception) – no exceptions.

Which begs a question that may be worth examining in a future Full Frontal Nerdity post…

If the institution of marriage is now about love and romance and all that jazz – where do mail order brides come into this?

Share This

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•